Los Angeles District South Pacific Division

Rio Salado Oeste Final Environmental Impact Statement

Salt River-Phoenix,

Prepared by:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District Arizona Nevada Area Office 3636 North Central Avenue, Suite 740 Phoenix, AZ 85012-1936

September 2006

Proposed Action: Ecosystem restoration along an eight mile reach of the

Type of Statement: Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)

Lead Agency: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District

Cooperating Agency: City of Phoenix

For Further Information: Scott K. Estergard U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District Arizona-Nevada Area Office, Planning Section C 3636 N. Central Ave., Suite 900, Phoenix, AZ. 85012-1939 (602)640-2003, X-242, [email protected]

Abstract: This final environmental impact statement (FEIS) analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed Rio Salado Oeste project on the Salt River in Maricopa County, Arizona. The primary purpose of the proposed action is ecosystem restoration. The responsible federal lead agency is the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District. The City of Phoenix is the non-federal sponsor.

The study area for the project consists of an eight mile reach of the Salt River and adjacent lands in and near southwestern Phoenix, Maricopa County, Arizona. More specifically, the study area consists of the Salt River corridor from 19th Avenue downstream (west) to 83rd Avenue, between Lower Buckeye Road and Baseline Road. This study area is three miles wide and encompasses approximately 23.5 square miles.

This document addresses the No-Action Alternative, the Recommended Plan, and four additional alternative plans developed to restore and improve native vegetation and wildlife habitat values in the project area. The recommended plan would entail earth moving, planting of vegetation and irrigation installation to facilitate restoration of 1,466 acres of riparian habitats along the Salt River. Restored habitats would consist of 170 acres of river channel (including 34 acres of in-channel wetland), 375 acres of cottonwood/willow forest, 417 acres of mesquite, 156 acres of other wetlands, 296 acres of riparian scrub and 52 acres of scrub shrub.

Additional benefits would include recreational opportunities, general improvements in aesthetic quality, and a slight reduction in the potential for flood damage. Each alternative has been designed to minimize adverse impacts to the maximum extent practicable. The anticipated cumulative effects of implementation of the proposed action have been considered and addressed. Analyses and documentation are consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable laws, regulations, and policies, and have been conducted in coordination with the City of Phoenix, the Indian Community, concerned resource agencies, and members of the public. Information referred to in this document, as well as in the accompanying feasibility report and appendices, is incorporated by reference.

A 45-day comment period on the Rio Salado Oeste, Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) began with the publication of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Notice of Availability in the Federal Register on May 12, 2006. A public hearing to discuss and receive comments on the Draft EIS was held at the Travis L Williams Family Services Community Center in Phoenix, Arizona on the evening of May 18, 2006. All comments received during the comment period were considered in the preparation of the Final EIS. Comments received during the public hearing or in writing, along with responses, may be found in Appendix E of the Final EIS. Unless otherwise requested, copies of the Final EIS will be provided on CD-ROM.

Rio Salado Oeste September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES. 1 INTRODUCTION

This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) has been prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Los Angeles District, to analyze potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of alternatives for the Rio Salado Oeste ecosystem restoration project. The study area is geographically located in the City of Phoenix, which lies within Maricopa County, Arizona. The study area is approximately eight miles long extending from 19th Avenue on the east downstream to 83rd Avenue on the west, and from Lower Buckeye Road on the north to Baseline Road on the south. The study area is approximately three miles wide and comprises approximately 23.5 square miles. While this is a large study area extending beyond the riverbanks, any implementation of project features would be associated with the river floodplain in an area referred to as the project implementation area. The project implementation area extends from 19th Avenue on the east to 83rd Avenue on the west, and is the area within the 100-year floodplain of the Salt River. The project implementation area averages two-thirds of a mile in width, and consists of approximately 3,315 acres. The study area lies between two other U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ecosystem restoration projects; Rio Salado Phoenix upstream and Tres Rios downstream.

Information referred to in this FEIS, as well as in the accompanying Feasibility Report titled Rio Salado Oeste Interim Feasibility Report, Salt River – Phoenix, Arizona (hereafter variously referred to as main report, feasibility report and main feasibility report) and its appendices, is incorporated by reference.

The FEIS provides a description of restoration alternatives and the No-Action Alternative; provides an analysis of the existing and future conditions of the area without the project, and; analyzes the impacts associated with five action alternatives that have been determined to be the most feasible. Alternative 5A has been identified as the recommended plan based on its achievement of project objectives and for its level of attainment of completeness, efficiency, effectiveness, and preliminary public acceptability criteria.

ES.2 MAJOR CONCLUSIONS

ES.2.1 FORMULATION AND SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES

The purpose of the proposed action is to restore degraded riparian ecosystem structure, function and dynamic processes to a more self-sustaining, diverse, and functional condition. Flood damage reduction was evaluated as an additional project purpose, but could not be economically justified. However, incidental flood damage reduction benefits would likely be obtained from an ecosystem restoration project. Potential additional benefits in the project area would include the following: passive recreation; improved water quality, air quality and aesthetics, and; noise reduction.

Rio Salado Oeste September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement ES-1 Specific planning objectives reflect the problems and opportunities for desired positive changes along the Rio Salado Oeste reach of the Salt River. The established objectives were: to restore native riparian, wetland, and floodplain habitats and manage undesirable plant, fish, and wildlife species; to reduce flood damages to infrastructure and structures, and; to improve passive recreation and environmental-education opportunities.

Alternative plans were developed during the feasibility study to meet the specified problems and opportunities and planning objective and constraints. The alternatives were then ranked based on completeness, effectiveness, efficiency, and acceptability and twelve were selected for further review. To narrow the array further, the study team determined the most significant criteria to use in comparing alternatives. These were:

• Cottonwood/willow is an important and scarce cover type in Arizona and the Southwest. The study team, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD), decided that cottonwood/willow cover type was the highest priority for restoration, followed by mesquite and wetlands. Due to the significance and scarcity of cottonwood/willow, alternatives not including this cover type were eliminated from further consideration.

• Since the watershed is developed, tributaries to the river have been replaced by stormwater outfalls. These stormwater outfalls provide opportunities for restoration and for potential water harvesting. These outfalls also provide an inexpensive opportunity to direct additional water to the project area and associated restoration features. The stormwater measure is a necessary component of any alternative because of the restoration opportunities and potential water source. Therefore, alternatives not including that individual component were eliminated from further consideration.

• Channel restoration is an important project component for various reasons. It provides a connection to other projects, is a potential means of water distribution, is important for the ecosystem, and contributes to reducing flooding potential. Therefore, alternatives not including that component were not considered.

Applying these criteria to the array of alternatives narrowed the list to five alternatives, plus the No-action Alternative. The remaining five alternatives all include channel modification to maximize stormwater retention for habitat use. Alternative 4 includes active restoration of cottonwood and mesquite and emergent habitat, as well as active management to control invasives. Alternative 5 includes all of the above, plus the development of two existing gravel pits into lakes. Alternative 5A, the Recommended Plan, was similar to Alternative 5, except that it proposed filling the pits to restore them to emergent wetland and riparian areas. Finally, Alternative 5B combines Alternatives 5 and 5A to develop one gravel pit into a lake and the other pit into an emergent wetland/riparian area. Table ES-1 summarizes this information below, and quantitatively shows expected restored acres for each cover type.

Alternative 5A is the recommended plan. It would restore 375 acres of cottonwood/willow, 417 acres of mesquite, 190 acres of wetlands (including 34 acres of in-channel wetlands), 156 acres of other wetlands, 296 acres of riparian scrub, and 52 acres of scrub-shrub habitat. In addition to restoration, the proposed alternative includes incidental flood damage reduction, incidental noise

Rio Salado Oeste September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement ES-2 reduction, incidental air quality benefits, incidental water quality benefits, incidental aesthetic improvements and passive recreation.

Incidental flood damage reduction benefits would include a slightly lowered water-surface elevation, the creation of attenuation within the channel, reduced surface roughness, a reduction in the erosion potential, and a reduction in sedimentation issues. In addition, there would be reduced potential for head-cutting west of the 35th Avenue bridge where a grade control structure would be constructed. This grade control structure would also reduce potential damages to the bridge. Restored vegetation would help attenuate noise and PM-10 emissions, thus providing incidental benefits of noise reduction and improved air quality. The increase in wetlands provides for filtration and attenuation of stormwater pollutants, thus providing incidental water quality benefits. Improvements to the quality of vegetative habitats and new recreation features would improve the aesthetic quality of the project implementation area. Major features of the recreation component include multipurpose trails, shelters, signage, utilities, park furniture, and interpretive media.

Operation, Maintenance, Repair, Replacement and Rehabilitation (OMRR&R) activities have also been identified for the project and have been evaluated in this FEIS. These activities include maintenance and replacement of pumps, pipelines, and other water delivery and irrigation infrastructure features, annual invasive species control, channel and wetland regrading and excavation and periodic removal of sediment, surface reshaping, or replanting of project features damaged by flood events.

ES 2.2 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND UNRESOLVED ISSUES

The public scoping process was initially conducted on September 13, 2001, between the City of Phoenix and Corps of Engineers’ staff. Continuing meetings were also held with the Rio Salado and Tres Rios Advisory committees to seek stakeholder and agency input. Meetings have been held throughout the planning process to gain further public input into the screening of alternatives. Major areas of concern included technical considerations based upon the specifics of the study, vector control, flood damage reduction, and opportunities for recreation.

A 45-day comment period on the Rio Salado Oeste, Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) began with the publication of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Notice of Availability in the Federal Register on May 12, 2006. Appendix E, Draft EIS Public Hearing, Comments and Responses, contains all of the tribal, agency, public and other comments. The majority of the comments were issued in support of the project. Those that included any other comments were comments which suggested clarification or editorial changes. This project has wide support and no areas of controversy were brought to our attention.

While not considered unresolved issues, future coordination with other agencies may occur in the following areas upon project authorization from Congress:

• The Corps has determined that this project as proposed is consistent with the Section 404(b)(1) guidelines (Appendix A) and is in compliance with the Clean Water Act. Upon authorization by Congress, the Corps will recommend an exemption from the

Rio Salado Oeste September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement ES-3 requirement to obtain State water quality certification under Section 404(r) of the Clean Water Act.

• Upon authorization from Congress to proceed with our recommended alternative, further evaluations of cultural resources in the project area may need to be conducted in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). If resources were determined to be National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)-eligible and avoidance is not feasible, further mitigation measures would be detailed in a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between all necessary parties, including the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), the City of Phoenix and the tribes. These measures would include field surveys, testing, and data recovery. Mitigation measures would also contain provisions that if cultural or paleontological resources are encountered during construction or other activities, work in the area would stop until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the finds and determine whether further investigation is necessary. All necessary parties would be notified if buried cultural resources are encountered.

• The USFWS sent a concurrence letter dated August 7, 2006. The Section 7 consultation letter concurs that the proposed action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the species of concern. A copy of this letter can be found in Appendix B. Reinitiation of consultation will only be necessary if: a) new information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in this consultation, b) the action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes and effect to listed species or critical habitat in a manner not considered in this consultation, c) a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the action, or d) incidental take of a listed species is reasonably certain to occur.

It is expected that these issues would be resolved during the preliminary engineering design phase of the project after the Final EIS has been published.

Rio Salado Oeste September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement ES-4 Table ES-1: Array of Alternatives and Associated Habitat Acres Restored

Channel1 Other Cottonwood/ Open Scrub- Alternative Low-Flow In-Channel Riparian Mesquite Wetlands TOTALS Willow Water Shrub2 Channel Wetlands3 Scrub 2. Stormwater and Channel 170 17 125 66 43 0 305 28 737 4. Stormwater, Channel, Water Supply, Cottowood, Mesquite, 170 34 165 348 409 0 63 33 1188 Invasive and Emergent 5. Stormwater, Channel, Water Supply, Cottowood, Mesquite, 170 34 296 375 417 40 92 76 1466 Invasive and Emergent, Lake 5A. Wetland/riparian restoration in lieu of permanent open water 170 34 296 375 417 0 52 156 1466 and lakes 5B. Hybrid of 5 & 5A with one gravel pit restored to a lake and the 170 34 296 375 417 20 52 136 1466 other a wetland/ riparian complex

1 River channel consists of low flow, wetland or riparian scrub. 2 Scrub shrub acres are dispersed among and between the other restored cover types within the floodplain. 3 Alternative 2 assumes that 10% of the low-flow channel would consist of wetlands; the remaining alternatives assume that 20% of the low-flow channel would consist of wetlands.

ES-4 Final Environmental Impact Statement September 2006

ES 2.3 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

Each of the alternatives has been analyzed to determine the environmental effects that would result should that alternative be implemented. Mitigation measures have been developed to avoid, minimize, or reduce the effects of any substantial adverse impacts. A cumulative impact analysis has also been prepared for each resource area. Table ES-2 provides a summary of the adverse impacts and mitigation measures for each resource area by alternative. Chapter 4 of this Statement includes more detailed information on potential impacts, beneficial or otherwise. Chapter 8 of the FEIS provides more detailed information on the mitigation measures.

Based on the Hydrogeomorphic Model (HGM, see Section 2.5.1) and Incremental Cost Analysis (ICA, see Section 2.5.2 and 2.5.3), Alternative 5A was determined to be the environmentally preferable alternative. Alternative 5A is also the locally preferred plan of the non-federal sponsor.

Rio Salado Oeste ES-5 Final Environmental Impact Statement September 2006

Table ES-2. Potential Adverse Effects Environmental Impact Summary Matrix

Environmental Element Alternative 2 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 5A Alternative 5B No-Action 4.1 GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY Impact: Minor Geomorphologic Changes in River Channel Level of Significance < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant Significant Mitigation Measure(s) No Mitigation No Mitigation No Mitigation No Mitigation No Mitigation No Mitigation Residual Significance < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant Significant 4.2 HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES Impact: Changes in 100-year Water Surface Elevations Level of Significance < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant Mitigation Measure(s) No Mitigation No Mitigation No Mitigation No Mitigation No Mitigation No mitigation Residual Significance < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant Impact: Potential Changes in Groundwater Depths Level of Significance < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant Mitigation Measure(s) No Mitigation No Mitigation No Mitigation No Mitigation No Mitigation No mitigation Residual Significance < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant 4.3 WATER QUALITY* Impact: Temporary Adverse Effects on Water Quality during Project Construction Level of Significance Potentially Potentially Potentially Potentially Potentially N/A Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Mitigation Measure(s) Implement Implement Implement Implement Implement Mitigation Measure Mitigation Mitigation Mitigation Mitigation N/A (MM) WQ-1 Measure WQ-1 Measure WQ-1 Measure WQ-1 Measure WQ-1 Residual Significance < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant N/A Impact: Potential Adverse Effects on Water Quality Associated with Accidental Spills of Fuels or Other Toxic Materials During Project Construction Level of Significance Potentially Potentially Potentially Potentially Potentially N/A Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Mitigation Measure(s) Implement MM Implement MM Implement MM Implement MM Implement MM N/A WQ-2 WQ-2 WQ-2 WQ-2 WQ-2 Residual Significance < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant N/A Impact: Potential Adverse Effects on Water Quality Associated with Effluent Level of Significance No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact Mitigation Measure(s) No Mitigation No Mitigation No Mitigation No Mitigation No Mitigation No mitigation * Mitigation Measures are described in Chapter 8 of the EIS. ES-1-6 September 2006

Residual Significance < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant Impact: Potential Adverse Effects on Groundwater Quality associated with Introduction of Effluent Water Source Level of Significance < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant Mitigation Measure(s) No Mitigation No Mitigation No Mitigation No Mitigation No Mitigation No mitigation Residual Significance < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES* Impact: Short-Term Decrease in Vegetation due to Construction Level of Significance Potentially Potentially Potentially Potentially Potentially N/A Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Mitigation Measure(s) Implement MM Implement MM Implement MM Implement MM Implement MM N/A BR-1 & BR-2 BR-1 & BR-2 BR-1 & BR-2 BR-1 & BR-2 BR-1 & BR-2 Residual Significance < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant N/A Impact: Long-Term Decrease in Vegetation Level of Significance N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Significant Mitigation N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A No mitigation Measure(s) Residual Significance N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Significant Impact: Short-Term Decrease in Fish & Wildlife Populations due to Construction and OMRR&R Activities Potentially Potentially Potentially N/A Level of Significance < Significant < Significant Significant Significant Significant Mitigation Implement MM Implement MM Implement MM Implement MM Implement MM N/A Measure(s) BR-3 BR-3 BR-3 & BR-7 BR-3 & BR-7 BR-3 & BR-7 Residual Significance < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant N/A Impact: Long-Term Decrease in Fish & Wildlife Populations Level of Significance N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Significant Mitigation N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A No mitigation Measure(s) Residual Significance N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Significant Impact: Potential Adverse Effects of Recreation to Wildlife and Vegetation Level of Significance < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant Mitigation No Mitigation No Mitigation No Mitigation No Mitigation No Mitigation No Mitigation Measure(s) Residual Significance < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant Impact: Short-Term Decrease in Potential for Special Status Species due to Construction and OMRR&R Activites * Mitigation Measures are described in Chapter 8 of the EIS. ES-1-7 September 2006

Level of Significance Potentially Potentially Potentially Potentially Potentially N/A Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Mitigation Measure(s) Implement MM Implement MM Implement MM Implement MM Implement MM BR-4, BR-5 & BR- BR-4, BR-5 & BR-4, BR-5 & BR-4, BR-5 & BR-4, BR-5 & N/A 6 BR-6 BR-6 BR-6 BR-6 Residual Significance < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant N/A Impact: Long-Term Decrease in Potential for Special Status Species Level of Significance N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Significant Mitigation Measure(s) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A No Mitigation Residual Significance N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Significant 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES* Impact: Potential Disturbance of Loss of Properties Listed or Eligible for Listing on the National Register Level of Significance < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant Mitigation Measure(s) Implement MM Implement MM Implement MM Implement MM Implement MM No Mitigation C-1 C-1 C-1 C-1 C-1 Residual Significance < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant 4.6 AESTHETIC RESOURCES Impact: Potential Short-Term Adverse Aesthetic Effects Due to Construction Level of Significance < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant N/A Mitigation Measure(s) No Mitigation No Mitigation No Mitigation No Mitigation No Mitigation N/A Residual Significance < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant N/A Impact: Potential Long-Term Adverse Aesthetic Effects Level of Significance < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant No Impact Mitigation Measure(s) No Mitigation No Mitigation No Mitigation No Mitigation No Mitigation No Mitigation Residual Significance < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant 4.7 AIR QUALITY* Impact: Generation of Construction-Related and Tailpipe Emissions (CO, VOC, N0X) Level of Significance < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant N/A Mitigation Measure(s) No Mitigation No Mitigation No Mitigation No Mitigation No Mitigation N/A Residual Significance < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant N/A Impact: Generation of Construction-Related and Operational Fugitive Dust (PM-10) Emissions Level of Significance Implement MM Implement MM Implement MM Implement MM Implement MM N/A AQ-1 AQ-1 AQ-1 AQ-1 AQ-1

* Mitigation Measures are described in Chapter 8 of the EIS. ES-1-8 September 2006

Mitigation Measure(s) Implement MM Implement MM Implement MM Implement MM Implement MM N/A AQ-1 AQ-1 AQ-1 AQ-1 AQ-1 Residual Significance < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant N/A Impact: Determination of Conformity Level of Significance < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant N/A Mitigation Measure(s) No Mitigation No Mitigation No Mitigation No Mitigation No Mitigation N/A Residual Significance < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant N/A Impact: Potential Adverse Effects on Air Quality due to Recreational Use Level of Significance Potentially Potentially Potentially Potentially Potentially N/A Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Mitigation Measure(s) Implement MM Implement MM Implement MM Implement MM Implement MM N/A AQ-2 AQ-2 AQ-2 AQ-2 AQ-2 Residual Significance < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant N/A 4.8 NOISE Impact: Short-Term Effects to Ambient Noise Conditions due to Construction and OMRR&R Activities Level of Significance < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant N/A Mitigation Measure(s) No Mitigation No Mitigation No Mitigation No Mitigation No Mitigation N/A Residual Significance < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant N/A Impact: Long-Term Effects to Ambient Noise Conditions Level of Significance < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant N/A Mitigation Measure(s) No Mitigation No Mitigation No Mitigation No Mitigation No Mitigation N/A Residual Significance < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant N/A 4.9 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC RESOURCES Impact: Detectable Increases or Decreases to Population, Housing, Employment or Income due to the Project Level of Significance < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant N/A Mitigation Measure(s) No Mitigation No Mitigation No Mitigation No Mitigation No Mitigation N/A Residual Significance < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant N/A Impact: Effects on Environmental Justice Level of Significance < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant N/A Mitigation Measure(s) No Mitigation No Mitigation No Mitigation No Mitigation No Mitigation N/A Residual Significance < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant N/A 4.10 TRANSPORTATION*

* Mitigation Measures are described in Chapter 8 of the EIS. ES-1-9 September 2006

Impact: Temporary Increase in Traffic on Existing Roadways during Project Construction Level of Significance Potentially Potentially Potentially Potentially Potentially N/A Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Mitigation Measure(s) Implement MM Implement MM Implement MM Implement MM Implement MM N/A T-1 T-1 T-1 T-1 T-1 Residual Significance < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant N/A Impact: Potential Damage to Roadway Surfaces during Project Construction Level of Significance Potentially Potentially Potentially Potentially Potentially N/A Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Mitigation Measure(s) Implement MM Implement MM Implement MM Implement MM Implement MM N/A T-2 T-2 T-2 T-2 T-2 Residual Significance < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant N/A Impact: Generation of Additional Vehicle Trips by Recreationists Level of Significance < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant N/A Mitigation Measure(s) No Mitigation No Mitigation No Mitigation No Mitigation No Mitigation N/A Residual Significance < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant N/A 4.11 LAND USE Impact: Temporary Adverse Effects on Land Use During Project Construction Level of Significance < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant N/A Mitigation Measure(s) No Mitigation No Mitigation No Mitigation No Mitigation No Mitigation N/A Residual Significance < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant N/A Impact: Compatibility with Land Use and Planning Policies of Local Government Jurisdictions Level of Significance Compatible Compatible Compatible Compatible Compatible Not Compatible Mitigation Measure(s) No No Mitigation No Mitigation No Mitigation No Mitigation No Mitigation Mitigation Residual Significance Meets Goals Meets Goals Meets Goals Meets Goals Meets Goals Not Compatible 4.12 RECREATION Impact: Temporary Adverse Effects on Recreation During Project Construction Level of Significance < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant N/A Mitigation Measure(s) No Mitigation No Mitigation No Mitigation No Mitigation No Mitigation N/A Residual Significance < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant N/A 4.13 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY* Impact: Temporary Construction-Related Water Quality Impacts * Mitigation Measures are described in Chapter 8 of the EIS. ES-1-10 September 2006

Level of Significance Potentially Potentially Potentially Potentially Potentially N/A Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Mitigation Measure(s) Implement MM Implement MM Implement MM Implement MM Implement MM N/A PHS-1 PHS-1 PHS-1 PHS-1 PHS-1 Residual Significance < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant N/A Impact: Temporary Construction and OMRR&R-Related Area Safety Issues Level of Significance Potentially Potentially Potentially Potentially Potentially N/A Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Mitigation Measure(s) Implement MM Implement MM Implement MM Implement MM Implement MM N/A PHS-2 PHS-2 PHS-2 PHS-2 PHS-2 Residual Significance < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant N/A Impact: Potential for Increases in Vector Control Level of Significance Potentially Potentially Potentially Potentially Potentially < Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Mitigation Measure(s) Implement MM Implement MM Implement MM Implement MM Implement MM No Mitigation PHS-3 PHS-3 PHS-3 PHS-3 PHS-3 Residual Significance < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant < Significant

* Mitigation Measures are described in Chapter 8 of the EIS. ES-1-11 September 2006

Table of Contents

CHAPTER 1. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION…………………………1-1 1.1 INTRODUCTION...... 1-1 1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED ...... 1-1 1.3 STUDY SCOPE...... 1-2 1.4 SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ...... 1-2 1.5 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED AUTHORIZATIONS...... 1-4 1.6 STUDY AREA AND PROJECT LOCATION...... 1-4 1.7 PREVIOUS STUDIES...... 1-5 1.8 PLANNING OBJECTIVES...... 1-5 1.9 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT...... 1-6

CHAPTER 2. ALTERNATIVES……………………………………………………………………...2-1 2.1 INTRODUCTION...... 2-1 2.2 REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES NOT WITHIN CORPS’ JURIDICTION...... 2-2 2.3 FORMULATION AND SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES...... 2-2 2.4 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ...... 2-5 2.5 CHOOSING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ...... 2-18 2.6 RECREATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION ...... 2-21

CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT……………………………………………………….3-1 3.1 GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY ...... 3-2 3.2 HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES...... 3-5 3.3 WATER QUALITY ...... 3-12 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES...... 3-21 3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES...... 3-39 3.6 AESTHETICS ...... 3-49 3.7 AIR QUALITY...... 3-53 3.8 NOISE ...... 3-59 3.9 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC RESOURCES...... 3-62 3.10 TRANSPORTATION ...... 3-66 3.11 LAND USE...... 3-68 3.12 RECREATION...... 3-72 3.13 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY ...... 3-75

CHAPTER 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES……………………………………………4-1 4.1 TOPOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGY ...... 4-1 4.2 HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES...... 4-3 4.3 WATER QUALITY...... 4-5 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES...... 4-8 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES...... 4-24 4.6 AESTHETIC RESOURCES...... 4-25 4.7 AIR QUALITY...... 4-27 4.8 NOISE ...... 4-31 4.9 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC RESOURCES...... 4-33

Rio Salado Oeste i September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement 4.10 TRANSPORTATION ...... 4-34 4.11 LAND USE...... 4-36 4.12 RECREATION...... 4-38 4.13 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY ...... 4-39

CHAPTER 5. CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS……………………………………………….5-1 5.1 PROJECTS WITHIN POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE IMPACT ZONE ...... 5-1 5.2 SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS BY RESOURCE AREA ...... 5-4 5.3 CONCLUSIONS ...... 5-11

CHAPTER 6. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES AND UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS…..……………………………………………...6-1 6.1 IRREVERSIBLE COMMITMENTS...... 6-1 6.2 IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS...... 6-1 6.3 UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS...... 6-2

CHAPTER 7. ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE……………………………………………….7-1 7.1 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA) OF 1969, AS AMENDED...... 7-1 7.2 CLEAN AIR ACT...... 7-1 7.3 CLEAN WATER ACT OF 1977 ...... 7-1 7.4 ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT (ESA) OF 1973, as amended ...... 7-2 7.5 BALD AND GOLDEN EAGLE PROTECTION ACT OF 1940, as amended (16 U.S.C. 668) ...... 7-2 7.6 FISH AND WILDLIFE COORDINATION ACT OF 1958, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661) ...... 7-2 7.7 MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT OF 1994, as amended...... 7-3 7.8 NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT...... 7-3 7.9 EXECUTIVE ORDER 11988, FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT, MAY 24, 1977, as amended...... 7-3 7.10 EXECUTIVE ORDER 11990, PROTECTION OF WETLANDS, 1977 ...... 7-4 7.11 EXECUTIVE ORDER 12898 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE...... 7-4 7.12 ARIZONA GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ACT...... 7-4 7.13 AQUIFER PROTECTION PERMITS...... 7-4 7.14 ARIZONA NATIVE PLANT LAW ...... 7-5 7.15 ARIZONA EXECUTIVE ORDER 91-6, PROTECTION OF RIPARIAN AREAS ...... 7-5

CHAPTER 8. MITIGATION MEASURES…………………………………………………………..8-1 8.1 GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY ...... 8-1 8.2 HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES...... 8-1 8.3 WATER QUALITY...... 8-1 8.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES...... 8-3 8.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES...... 8-5 8.6 AESTHETICS ...... 8-5 8.7 AIR QUALITY...... 8-5 8.8 NOISE ...... 8-6

Rio Salado Oeste ii September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement 8.9 SOCIAL AND ECONOMOIC RESOURCES...... 8-7 8.10 TRANSPORTATION ...... 8-7 8.11 LAND USE...... 8-7 8.12 RECREATION...... 8-7 8.13 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY ...... 8-7

CHAPTER 9. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT……………………………………………………………9-1 9.1 SCOPING...... 9-1 9.2 HGM MODEL PREPARATION...... 9-2 9.3 AGENCY COORDINATION...... 9-2 9.4 PUBLIC HEARING...... 9-3

CHAPTER 10. LIST OF PREPARERS AND REVIEWERS……………………………………...10-1

CHAPTER 11. REFERENCES………………………………………………………………………11-1

CHAPTER 12. DISTRIBUTION LIST……………………………………………………………...12-1

CHAPTER 13. ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS…………………………………………...13-1

Rio Salado Oeste iii September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement List of Tables

Table 2.3-1: Preliminary Screening of Possible Alternatives...... 2-4 Table 2.3-2. Second Array of 12 Alternatives ...... 2-5 Table 2.4-1: Summary of Stormwater Outfalls with Recommended Restoration Potential...... 2-6 Table 2.4-2. Acres of habitat associated with each action alternative...... 2-14 Table 2.4-3. Water Demand for Alternative Plans ...... 2-17 Table 2.5-1. Cost-Effective Alternatives ...... 2-20 Table 2.5-2: Incrementally Cost-Effective Alternatives...... 2-20 Table 2.6-1. Rio Salado Oeste Recreation Plan Baseline Visitation Estimate ...... 2-22 Table 2.6-2. Rio Salado Oeste Recreation Plan Components...... 2-23 Table 3.2-1: Major and in the Gila River Basin ...... 3-7 Table 3.2-2. Inundation-Duration Frequency Values for the Salt River...... 3-10 Table 3.3-1. Types of Water Contaminants in the Lower Salt River ...... 3-13 Table 3.4-1. Cover Types Present Within the Rio Salado Oeste Project Study Area...... 3-23 Table 3.4-2. Special Status Species that may occur in the Rio Salado Oeste project area...... 3-36 Table 3.5-1. Hohokam Chronology for the Phoenix Basin ...... 3-44 Table 3.5-2. Prehistoric Canals and Their Historic Counterparts...... 3-45 Table 3.7-1. Monthly Temperature, Precipitation and Wind Speed in Phoenix...... 3-54 Table 3.7-2. Attainment Status and Conformity Thresholds ...... 3-55 Table 3.7-3. Air Quality Monitoring Stations...... 3-57 Table 3.9-1. Population and Household Characteristics in the Vicinity of the Study Area .....3-63 Table 3.9-2. Ethnic Population Characteristics in the Vicinity of the Study Area ...... 3-63 Table 3.9-3. Occupancy Rates in the Vicinity of the Study Area...... 3-64 Table 3.9-4. Housing-Unit Type and Median Value in the Vicinity of the Study Area...... 3-64 Table 3.9-5. Industry Employment in Maricopa County, January 2002 ...... 3-65 Table 3.9-6. Median Household Income in the Vicinity of the Study Area ...... 3-66 Table 3.11-1. Property Ownership within the Study Area (100-Year Floodplain) ...... 3-69 Table 4.4-1. With-Project Average Annual Functional Capacity Units ...... 4-18 Table 4.7-1. Estimated Air Emissions for Alternative 5A...... 4-29 Table 5.1-1. Summary of Projects within the Potential Cumulative Impact Zone...... 5-4 Table 5.2-1. Comparison of Air Emissions From the Salt River Ecosystem Restoration Projects and the Maricopa County Ozone and PM-10 Nonattainment Areas ...... 5-7 Table 5.2-2. Approximate Air Emissions Inventory for the Rio Salado Oeste Study Area ...... 5-8

Rio Salado Oeste iv September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement

List of Figures

Figure 1.6-1 Rio Salado Oeste Vicinity Map...... 1-7 Figure 1.6-2 Rio Salado Study Area and Project Implementation Area...... 1-8 Figure 1.7-1 Location of Other Corps Projects...... 1-9 Figure 2.6-1 Rio Salado Oeste Conceptual Recreation Plan (West) ...... 2-24 Figure 2.6-2 Rio Salado Oeste Conceptual Recreation Plan (East)…………………………..2-25 Figure 3.2-1 100-Year Floodplain ...... 3-78 Figure 3.3-1 Depth to Groundwater...... 3-79 Figure 3.3-2 Areas of Groundwater Quality Concern ...... 3-80 Figure 3.4-1 Biological Communities...... 3-81 Figure 3.7-1 Mariocpa County PM-10 and Ozone Nonattainment Areas…………………….3-54 Figure 3.10-1 Census Tracts Poverty Level (2000)...... 3-82 Figure 3.10-2 Census Tracts Minority Hispanic (2000) ...... 3-83 Figure 3.11-1 Property Ownership and Use within Project Study Area...... 3-84 Figure 3.12-1 Recreational Facilities within the Vicinity of the Study Area ...... 3-85

Rio Salado Oeste v September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement List of Appendices

Appendix A: Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Compliance Evaluation

Appendix B: Biological Resources Appendix

Appendix C: Cultural Resources Appendix

Appendix D: Air Quality Assumptions Used to Generate Air Emission Estimates for the Rio Salado Oeste Project

Appendix E: Draft EIS Public Hearing, Comments and Responses

Rio Salado Oeste vi September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION

The Salt River (Rio Salado in Spanish) is a major tributary to the Gila River. It originates in eastern Arizona and flows westward to its confluence with Gila River, west of downtown Phoenix. Prior to agricultural development and urbanization of the Phoenix metropolitan area, the Salt River was a perennial stream fed by snowmelt from mountains in eastern Arizona. Early in the 20th century, major modifications to the river system occurred as part of the Salt River Project (SRP). Several dams were placed along the river allowing diversions of water for agricultural and urban uses. Sand and gravel mining operations and other activities induced additional changes to the river channel and hydrology. As water diversions increased, the groundwater table lowered, separating riparian communities on the surface from a principal water source. Groundwater depletion, coupled with damming of the river by the SRP, caused perennial flow in the Salt River to cease. These changes in hydrological conditions caused the natural riparian ecosystem to decline. Only small, isolated fragments of former habitat remain. Changes in hydrology have also allowed salt cedar, an invasive non-native plant species with minimal habitat value, to become established in the region. Presently, the study area consists of a highly disturbed riverbed with minimal existent native vegetation.

1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED

The purpose of the proposed action is to restore degraded ecosystem structure, function and dynamic processes to a more natural condition. Indicators of success would include the presence of a variety of native plants and animals, and the ability of the area to sustain larger numbers of certain indicator species or more biologically desirable species. There is a need to restore the area in such a manner that the function and desired outputs can naturally evolve with a minimum of continuing human intervention. Potential benefits include increasing wildlife habitat, improving water and air quality, improving the aesthetic quality, reducing ambient noise levels, providing incidental flood damage reduction, and offering passive recreational opportunities.

Further, flood damage reduction and water supply projects within the Gila River watershed have resulted in substantial alteration of the hydrological regime. This alteration, increased agricultural development and urbanization of Phoenix, has resulted in substantial alteration of native cottonwood/willow, mesquite bosque, freshwater marsh and willow woodland desirable habitat types. Without restoration, habitat values in the Rio Salado Oeste reach of the Salt River are expected to further decline within the next 50 years. This would decrease the overall habitat value for federally listed Threatened and Endangered species, as well as Wildlife of Special Concern to the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD). These species include the Yuma clapper rail and southwestern willow flycatcher.

This project is needed to provide an ecological connection between other riparian restoration projects on-going along the Salt River. Without this connection we will see a spread of invasive

Rio Salado Oeste 1-1 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement non-native plants into those restored ecological areas up stream and down stream of this proposed action due to the high level of disturbance within the proposed reach. Also, there is substantial need for additional recreational areas within Phoenix. While recreation is not a major goal of this project, restoration of the area may provide passive recreational benefits.

1.3 STUDY SCOPE

The Rio Salado Oeste Feasibility Study is being conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps, Los Angeles District, and the City of Phoenix, in cooperation with the Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC). The purpose of this study is to identify whether or not it is feasible to implement a project along the Salt River in Phoenix. This study will identify ecosystem restoration, flood damage reduction and recreation alternatives that are technically feasible, economically practicable, and sound with respect to environmental considerations, and that are publicly acceptable. The City of Phoenix, as the non-federal sponsor for the project, supports the proposed project purpose to restore and improve native vegetation and wildlife habitat values in the project area.

1.4 SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

The EIS contains the following major elements that are required under the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA Regulations:

• Coversheet, which includes a list of the responsible agencies, the title of the proposed action and its location, the name, address, and telephone number of the person at the agency who can supply further information, the statement’s current designation, a one paragraph abstract, and the date by which comments must be received.

• Executive Summary, which stresses the major conclusions, areas of controversy, and the issues to be resolved.

• Chapter 1. Purpose and Need. This chapter also includes an overview of the elements necessary for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ participation in the planning of Rio Salado Oeste.

• Chapter 2. Alternatives Including the Proposed Action. This section explores and evaluates all reasonable alternatives, selected and eliminated, in a way that allows reviewers to evaluate their comparative merits. It includes reasonable alternatives not within the Corps’ jurisdiction, includes the alternative of No-Action, identifies the Corps’ recommended plan, and includes appropriate mitigation measures.

• Chapter 3. Affected Environment. This section includes relevant data and analyses used to determine affects the alternatives would have on the environment.

Rio Salado Oeste 1-2 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement • Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences. The section includes environmental impacts of the alternatives, including the No-Action alternative. It includes discussions related to mitigation; however mitigation is further discussed in Chapter 8. The remaining requirements of the NEPA Regulations were broken out into separate chapters.

• Chapter 5. Cumulative Impacts. This section describes possible beneficial, adverse, and unavoidable significant cumulative impacts within the Rio Salado Oeste Cumulative Impact Zone.

• Chapter 6. Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments of Resources and Unavoidable Significant Impacts. This section articulates damages to the environment that cannot be reversed, even after the life of a project and resources that are lost for a long period of time.

• Chapter 7. Environmental Compliance. This section discusses the major state and federal environmental laws potentially applicable to the project.

• Chapter 8. Mitigation Measures. This section describes mitigation measures as applicable for each of the 13 affected resource categories.

• Chapter 9. Public Involvement. This section discusses scoping, the public involvement process to date, and agency coordination completed by the Corps.

• A List of Preparers is provided in Chapter 10.

• References cited in the text are listed in Chapter 11.

• A List of Agencies, Organizations, and persons to whom copies of the statement are sent is provided in Chapter 12.

• An Index.

• Appendices: Appendix A - Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Compliance Evaluation, Appendix B – Biological Resources Appendix, Appendix C – Cultural Resources Appendix, Appendix D – Air Quality Assumptions Used to Generate Air Emission Estimates for the Rio Salado Oeste Project and Appendix E – Draft EIS Public Hearing, Comments and Responses

The EIS focuses on major issue areas including:

• Geology and topography, • Hydrology and water resources, • Water quality, • Biological resources, • Cultural resources,

Rio Salado Oeste 1-3 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement • Aesthetic resources, • Air quality, • Noise, • Social and economic resources (including environmental justice), • Transportation, • Land use, • Recreation, and • Public health and safety.

1.5 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED AUTHORIZATIONS

The study was conducted under two separate authorities provided by Congress. • The first authority is given by Public Law 761, Seventy-fifth Congress, dated June 28, 1938, known as Section 6 of the Flood Control Act of 1938, which reads in part as follows: “the Secretary of War(now Secretary of the Army) is hereby authorized and directed to cause preliminary examinations and surveys...at the following localities …Gila River and tributaries, Arizona.” • The second and most recent authority is provided by House Resolution 2425 (HR 2425), dated May 17, 1994, which states:

“the Secretary of the Army is requested to review reports of the Chief of Engineers on the State of Arizona…in the interest of flood damage reduction, environmental protection and restoration, and related purposes.”

1.6 STUDY AREA AND PROJECT LOCATION

The study area for the project consists of an eight mile reach of the Salt River and adjacent lands in and near southwestern Phoenix, Maricopa County, Arizona (see Figure 1-1). More specifically, the study area consists of the Salt River corridor from 19th Avenue downstream (west) to 83rd Avenue, between Lower Buckeye Road and Baseline Road. This study area is three miles wide and encompasses approximately 23.5 square miles. The study area lies between two other U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ecosystem restoration projects; Rio Salado Phoenix upstream and Tres Rios downstream.

While this is a large study area extending beyond the riverbanks, any implementation of project features would be associated with the river floodplain. For the purpose of alternative formulation, the project implementation area was defined as the area within one mile of the centerline of the Salt River from 19th Avenue to 83rd Avenue (Figure 1.6-3). With the formulation of alternatives now complete, the project implementation area has been reduced to encompass only the area within the 100-year floodplain of the Salt River. The project implementation area is, on average, approximately two-thirds of a mile wide and consists of approximately 3,315 acres. Figure 1.6-3 displays the study area and project implementation areas.

Rio Salado Oeste 1-4 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement 1.7 PREVIOUS STUDIES

The Salt River has been extensively utilized for irrigation since prehistoric times. In the 1800s, settlers reestablished many historical irrigation canals. Since then, the Phoenix metropolitan area has established itself around the river. The Salt River has presented many opportunities and challenges, and has been studied extensively.

Various agencies and engineering consulting firms have conducted or published over 50 studies and reports on the Salt River since 1980. The topics of the reports or studies include water resources, flood damage reduction, recreation and urban development, and environmental assessment. Two of these studies supported implementation of water resources projects immediately upstream and downstream of the Rio Salado Oeste reach Figure 1.7-1. These studies are as follows:

• In April 1998, the Corps completed the feasibility report and EIS for the Rio Salado Salt River, Arizona project. The report identified plans that would provide environmental restoration benefits and serve the public interest to this upstream reach of the Salt River. The project is currently in the final year of construction.

• In April 2000, the Corps completed a feasibility report and EIS for the Tres Rios, Arizona Project. The study examined a portion of the Salt River and Gila River from 83rd Avenue downstream to the , and selected a plan that includes environmental restoration and flood damage reduction components. The project is currently in the design phase.

Other previous studies can be found in Chapter 3 of the feasibility report. The findings in these reports and the chronology of change within the Salt River corridor are important and essential in describing the changes over time and in outlining the importance of this project.

1.8 PLANNING OBJECTIVES

This study has specific planning objectives that provided the focus for the formulation of alternatives. The study objectives reflect the problems and opportunities for desired positive changes along the Rio Salado Oeste reach, and are as follows:

• restore native riparian, wetland, and floodplain habitats and manage undesirable plant, fish, and wildlife species;

• reduce flood damages to infrastructure and structures, and;

• improve passive recreation and environmental-education opportunities.

Rio Salado Oeste 1-5 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement 1.9 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Information regarding public and interagency involvement during the initial scoping for Rio Salado Oeste can be found in Chapter 9 of this Statement. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) ensures public involvement and notification of a proposed project. The release of this document on Friday, May 12, 2006 coincided with a public hearing on May 18, 2006. The outcomes of this meeting can be found in Appendix E of this report.

Rio Salado Oeste 1-6 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement

CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES

The purpose of this section is to provide a comprehensive description of alternatives for the Rio Salado Oeste Feasibility Study, including alternatives outside the Corps’ jurisdiction, abandoned alternatives, the no-action alternative and identification of the proposed alternative. Chapter 5 of the Main Feasibility Report discusses the alternatives, their development and screening in further detail and should be referred to for additional information.

This section provides:

• an overview of the alternative formulation and screening process conducted for the Rio Salado Oeste Feasibility Study; • descriptions of the biologically and incrementally cost effective alternatives (including the No-Action Alternative) selected for evaluation in this document; • brief descriptions of the alternatives that were evaluated and eliminated from consideration during the screening process, and; • a recreation plan that could be implemented with any of the alternatives selected for evaluation.

2.1 INTRODUCTION

This Environmental Impact Statement is part of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and City of Phoenix and planning effort to restore degraded ecosystem structure, function and dynamic processes to a more natural condition. There is a need to restore the area in such a manner that the function and desired outputs can naturally evolve with a minimum of continuing human intervention. The alternatives would have to achieve the project purpose while complying with Corps federal planning objectives and the more specific objectives set during the Rio Salado Oeste planning effort.

In Section 209 of the Flood Control Act of 1970, Pub, L. No. 91-611, 42 U.S.C. 1962-2, Congress identified four general objectives to be included in federally financed water resource projects. These objectives are: enhancing regional economic development, the quality of the total environment, including its protection and improvement, the well-being of the people of the United States, and the national economic development. These four objectives remain important considerations of water resource projects and address long-term impacts, defined in such a manner that each proposed plan can be easily compared to the no action plan and other alternatives. However, ecosystem restoration projects focus on a fifth objective, the National Ecosystem Restoration (NER) objective. That objective is to contribute to the Nation’s ecosystems through restoration, with contributions measured by changes in the amounts and values of habitat.

Rio Salado Oeste 2-1 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement The more specific objectives for Rio Salado Oeste were developed through coordination with local and regional agencies, public involvement, site assessments, interpretation of prior studies and reports, and review of existing water projects. The planning objectives reflect the problems and opportunities, represent desired positive changes along the Rio Salado Oeste reach and provide focus for the formulation of alternatives. These objectives are to: restore native riparian, wetland, and floodplain habitat and manage undesirable plant, fish and wildlife species; reduce flood damages to infrastructure and structures, and; improve passive recreation and environmental recreation and environmental-education opportunities.

2.2 REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES NOT WITHIN CORPS’ JURIDICTION

There are several alternatives that do not fall within the programs, missions and authorities of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). These alternatives would meet the project purpose of restoring the degraded ecosystem structure, function and dynamic processes to a more natural condition. One such alternative would be to negotiate substantial releases of stored water from the dams operated by the Salt River Project to restore perennial flows into the Salt River. Reintroducing perennial flow would have the potential to re-establish riparian habitats, which could incidentally help restore dynamic channel processes to a more natural condition. In order to implement this alternative, supplemental water sources for the metropolitan areas in Maricopa County would need to be developed.

A second alternative could involve the City of Phoenix Parks & Recreation Department coupling with a volunteer-based community group, such as the Phoenix Parks and Conservation Foundation or the Boy Scouts of America, to restore portions of the Rio Salado Oeste project area. The City of Phoenix had major success with volunteer contribution to the Rio Salado Phoenix project in the planting of the “Thousand Tree Forest.” Volunteer projects could eventually provide smaller-scale restoration of riparian habitats, which could incidentally help to restore other functions and dynamic processes to a more natural condition.

2.3 FORMULATION AND SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES

2.3.1 THE SIX-STEP PLANNING PROCESS

The Corps’ six-step planning process is used to formulate, evaluate, and compare the array of candidate plans that are considered. The plan formulation process includes the following steps:

1. The specific problems and opportunities to be addressed in the study are identified, and the causes of the problems are discussed and documented. Planning goals are set, objectives are established, and constraints identified. 2. Existing and future without-project conditions are identified, analyzed, and forecasted. The existing condition resources, problems, and opportunities critical to plan formulation, impact assessment, and evaluation are characterized and documented.

Rio Salado Oeste 2-2 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement 3. The study team formulates alternative plans that address the planning objectives. An initial set of alternatives is developed and is evaluated at a preliminary level of detail. 4. Alternative project plans are evaluated for effectiveness, efficiency, completeness, and acceptability. 5. Alternative plans are compared. Cost-effectiveness and incremental cost analysis is used to prioritize and rank ecosystem restoration alternatives. A public involvement program obtains public input for the alternative identification and evaluation process. 6. The plan with the greatest net benefits is selected for recommendation if at least one plan demonstrating federal interest exists.

2.3.2 DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS

The alternative formulation begins initially by developing measures based on public input and suggestions, Corps and other federal and state agencies experiences with similar restoration opportunities, technical considerations based upon the characteristics of the area, and flood damage reduction considerations for improving or maintaining the existing level of protection. Preliminary management measures addressed such categories as ecosystem restoration, channel stabilization, public education, and recreation.

The study team combined these measures to form the first array of twenty preliminary alternative plans. Table 2.3-1 lists the preliminary alternatives considered for implementing ecosystem restoration. Development of those alternatives assumes that restoration is dependent both on water supply and control of invasive species. Also, implementation of the City of Phoenix recreation plan is assumed for all but the No-Action alternative.

These preliminary alternatives were evaluated using three screening criteria: completeness – the extent to which a given alternative provides and accounts for all necessary investments or other actions to ensure realization of the planned effects; effectiveness – the extent to which an alternative alleviates the specified problem and achieves the specified opportunities, and; induction of flood damages – alternatives that install significant vegetation to the floodplain but neither include channel restoration nor restrict the location of that vegetation could raise water surface elevations and should be avoided. Alternatives that did not meet the three criteria were dropped from further evaluation. These alternatives are shown in the table below with grey shading.

Rio Salado Oeste 2-3 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 2.3-1. Preliminary Screening of Possible Alternatives # Description Complete Effective Flooding 1 No Action - 0 Y 7 Water Supply - 0 Y 8 Water Supply, Invasive Control - 0 Y 2 Invasive Control - 0 N 3 Channel Restoration - 1 N 4 Channel Restoration, Invasive Control - 1 N 9 Water Supply, Channel Restoration - 1 N 10 Water Supply, Channel Restoration, Invasive Control - 1 N 11 Water Supply, Channel Restoration, Emergent, Invasive Control - 1 N 12 Water Supply, Channel Restoration, Mesquite + 2 N 13 Water Supply, Channel Restoration, Mesquite, Emergent, + 2 N Invasive 14 Water Supply, Cottonwood, Channel Restoration, Invasive + 2 N 15 Water Supply, Cottonwood, Channel Restoration, Emergent, + 2 N Invasive 5 Storm Water + 3 N 6 Storm Water, Channel Restoration + 3 N 16 Water Supply, Cottonwood, Channel Restoration, Mesquite, + 3 N Invasive 17 Water Supply, Cottonwood, Channel Restoration, Mesquite, + 3 N Emergent, Invasive Water Supply, Storm Water, Cottonwood, Channel Restoration, + 3 N 18 Mesquite, Emergent, Invasive Water Supply, Lake, Cottonwood, Channel Restoration, + 3 N 19 Mesquite, Emergent, Invasive Water Supply, Lake, Storm Water, Cottonwood, Channel + 3 N 20 Restoration, Mesquite, Emergent, Invasive Note: Effectiveness: Numbers designate number of habitat cover types that would be restored by that alternative. For example the number 2 indicates that 2 habitat types would be restored. + or – indicate if that alternative meets the subject criteria as described.

Applying the three screening criteria to the preliminary alternatives reduced the number of alternatives from 20 to 12. In order to obtain a smaller number of alternatives that were more easily comparable and that more precisely met the project objectives, the study team screened the second array of alternatives with more specific criteria. The four criteria eliminated alternatives that did not include: creating cottonwood/willow habitat, harvesting water from stormwater outfalls for restoration and restoring the channel. The results are shown in Table 2.3-2, below. Again, alternatives that did not meet the criteria and were dropped from further evaluation are shown in grey.

Rio Salado Oeste 2-4 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 2.3-2. Second Array of 12 Alternatives # Preliminary Alternatives Reason Dropped 1 No-Action 2 Stormwater No channel restoration included. 3 Stormwater, Channel 4 Water Supply, Channel, Mesquite Does not include cottonwood/willow 5 Water Supply, Channel, Mesquite, Does not include cottonwood/willow Emergent, Invasive 6 Water Supply, Cottonwood, Channel, Does not include stormwater Invasive 7 Water Supply, Cottonwood, Channel, Does not include stormwater, similar to Emergent, Invasive alternative 8 8 Water Supply, Cottonwood, Channel, Mesquite, Invasive, added Stormwater 9 Water Supply, Cottonwood, Channel, Does not include stormwater, similar to Mesquite, Emergent, Invasive alternative 10 10 Water Supply, Stormwater, Cottonwood, Channel, Mesquite, Emergent, Invasive 11 Water Supply, Lake, Cottonwood, Does not include stormwater, with inclusion of it Channel, Mesquite, Emergent, Invasive same as alternative 12. 12 Water Supply, Lake, Stormwater, Cottonwood, Channel, Mesquite, Emergent, Invasive

Applying these three criteria produced an array of four alternatives, plus the No-Action alternative. Upon further evaluation, alternatives eight and ten (from the table above) were too similar to one another to be evaluated separately and, thus, were combined into the final array Alternative 4. Alternative 12, above (Alternative 5 in the final array), includes restoring both sand/gravel pits into open water lakes. The study team realized that this alternative could be broken down into different levels of sand/gravel pit restoration. One level would restore the two pits into riparian complexes instead of lakes (Alternative 5A) and the other alternative would restore one pit to an open water lake and one to a riparian complex (Alternative 5B). Thus, the five alternatives, plus the No-Action alternative, originated.

2.4 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES

This section begins by discussing the measures that are common to multiple alternatives. The five action alternatives are then discussed in detail including the acres of each habitat type that would be restored by each.

Rio Salado Oeste 2-5 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement 2.4.1 MEASURES COMBINED TO FORM CONSTRUCTION ALTERNATIVES

The following measures were used in various combinations for the five construction alternatives (Alternatives 2, 4, 5, 5A and 5B, see Table 2.5-1).

2.4.1.1 Provide Water Supply

Project water is a constraint and a limiting factor across all alternatives. The project area can be split into two reaches based on water supply: (1) 19th to 51st Avenues where effluent and stormwater are primary sources and (2) 51st to 83rd Avenues where groundwater is more likely to be shallow enough to support vegetation after it is established. Water supply and distribution has been evaluated and planned by the City of Phoenix and is described in more detail within Appendix J, Design and Cost Estimate, of the feasibility report.

Effluent: Effluent from the 23rd Avenue wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) is the primary source of water available for the restoration project. The City of Phoenix estimates that approximately 8 mgd (8,964 ac-ft) is available to the project. Use of this water would require construction of a means to deliver effluent to the project from the 23rd Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP).

Stormwater: Stormwater outfalls within the project area have been identified and possible discharges from them quantified. This includes eight different outfalls from which an estimated average of 2,863 ac-ft was estimated to discharge based upon a 7- inch annual rainfall. Additional future outfalls may be implemented by the county at 51st Avenue (south) and 75th Avenue (north). While not a reliable, constant source of project water, there are opportunities for future use of this water with proper design at the outfall locations. Various types of habitat are currently being supported by stormwater runoff. Design of a restoration plan would include site-specific measures maximizing use of that runoff. Table 2.4-1, below, provides a summary of the eight stormwater outfalls potential for restoration.

Table 2.4-1. Summary of Stormwater Outfalls with Recommended Restoration Potential Location Restoration 19th Avenue NW Mesquite Bosque/Palo Verde 19th Avenue SW Wetland and Riparian Corridor 27th Avenue SE Wetlands and Riparian 35th Avenue NW Cottonwood/willow 43rd Avenue N Wetland/Cottonwood-Willow 43rd Avenue S Wetland 51st Avenue NW Wetland/Mesquite 67th Avenue Wetland/Cottonwood-Willow

Rio Salado Oeste 2-6 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement Groundwater: Depth to groundwater through the project area varies from an average of 20 to 60 feet. In general, the depth to groundwater decreases to the west end of the study area where dewatering is required at 91st Avenue. In an analysis of Arizon Department of Water Resources well data and interpolation of surface water in gravel pits, there appears to be a zone of shallow (20-feet deep) groundwater between 51st and 19th Avenues in the river channel. This is likely due to excavation and is known to fluctuate as much as 20 feet annually (Rinker Materials Observation). Groundwater is being pumped in the vicinity of 23rd Avenue for sand and gravel mining where it contributes to the large lake near 27th Avenue. It was also assumed that the lake in the vicinity of 37th Avenue was excavated to groundwater depth; however, observations in 2004 appear to indicate that the level has dropped significantly and that the elevations in the lake appear to be influenced more by effluent discharge.

Supply Well: A supplemental well providing up to 1.85 mgd from the Upper Alluvial Unit is part of the proposed system. This would provide redundancy in the event that there is a prolonged outage and effluent becomes unavailable for a period of time.

2.4.1.2 Provide Water Distribution

A water distribution system is needed to deliver water from the sources described above through the study area to locations where native vegetation is being reestablished.

Flood Irrigation: Flood irrigation may be accomplished through a series of canals or channels delivering water to revegetation sites. Distribution within the revegetation sites may be through a braided network of channels. Effluent and pumped groundwater may be utilized for flood irrigation.

Drip Irrigation: This would be a temporary drip irrigation system consisting of small diameter pipes and drip emitters. Pumping would be required as a portion of this system. Drip irrigation works best with groundwater. Effluent water tends to clog the system and requires high maintenance.

Stormwater Harvesting: This measure is similar to creating a perched aquifer by providing water to a location with a below-grade low permeable layer. Although this could be accomplished with any water source and proper site-specific soil conditions, it appears that at several of the stormwater outfalls, similar conditions already exist. At constructed wetlands or ponds, a design option may include features that allow or encourage subsurface recharge to percolate down gradient and provide moist conditions, thereby irrigating adjacent vegetation.

Rio Salado Oeste 2-7 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement 2.4.1.3 Revegetation

2.4.1.3.1 Cottonwood/Willow

Due to groundwater depth, cottonwood/willow habitat could only be restored in proximity to existing or future surface water. This habitat would require a constant water source for the life of the project unless it can be verified that groundwater would be available within six to seven feet of the surface, in which case surface water would only be required for the first five years. Cottonwood/willow habitat would also require richer soils than some other habitat types. Generally, cottonwoods occur at a greater distance from surface water than willows. Willows require more moisture at the surface for optimal growth. Cottonwood/willow would be dominated by Fremont’s cottonwood (Populus fremontii) and Gooding’s willow (Salix gooddingii). Other understory species would be planted, depending upon individual site conditions, but could include Baccarus spp, arrowweed (Pluchea sericea), elderberry (Sambucus mexicana), burrobush (Hymenoclea spp.), and possibly ash. Two planting options are being considered for establishment of cottonwood/willow. It is assumed that a combination of techniques would be utilized with specific planting techniques to be determined during project design.

Plant Poles: Plant poles are dormant pole cuttings harvested from living woody plants and planted vertically into the substrate. Poles need to be three to 4.5 inches in diameter and at least six to eight feet long. Unless planted in saturated soils or near stable groundwater, temporary irrigation would be required. Pole plantings of cottonwood and willow have shown high rates of success with this technique. Plant materials should be available nearby, and may even be obtained from the other Salt River projects.

Plant Containers: Nursery grown potted containers would be planted on site. One gallon containers have shown the greatest success rates (80+ percent) at Lower Las Vegas Wash, Nevada. They are also the least expensive container plants available. Plantings would require a source of irrigation, at least temporarily.

2.4.1.3.2 Mesquite

This habitat would potentially be restored over a large portion of the project area. It would require periodic watering for the first five years after planting, although with less frequency than cottonwood/willow. Watering could possibly be discontinued after five years or when roots are expected to reach groundwater. Mesquite bosques would be dominated by velvet mesquite (Prosopis velutina), with scattered screwbean mesquite (Prosopsis pubescens), and some understory shrubs, such as desert thorn (Lycium spp.), palo verde (Cercidium floridum), brittlebush (Encelia farinose), and forbs.

Bosque: Mesquite bosques are commonly found five to 20 feet above the river channel where water is adequate. They require a water table, or semi-saturated soil conditions ten to 30 feet below the surface elevation and rely on occasional saturated conditions one to three feet below the surface. Soil requirements range from fine to gravelly, with some rocky areas. The mesquite bosques would be planted with a density of approximately Rio Salado Oeste 2-8 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement 100 velvet mesquite, ten screwbean mesquite, and 40 understory shrubs per acre. Understory forbes would also be planted using a seed mix.

Xeric: In locations throughout the study with less water available, xeric stands of mesquite would be established. It is assumed that mesquite would survive under drier conditions and on higher terraces than mesquite bosque. Planting densities would be lower, with approximately 25 velvet mesquite, five screwbean mesquite, and ten understory shrubs per acre.

2.4.1.3.3 Riparian Scrub Shrub

The project implementation area already contains a substantial acreage of scrub shrub habitat. Although portions of this cover type would be converted to the other riparian habitats, other areas would be maintained as scrub shrub. This cover type provides a connection between other habitat types, and contributes to the important mosaic of vegetative cover types that maximizes structural habitat complexity. It is assumed that some portions maintained would remain a more xeric desert scrub, but others adjacent to the wetter riparian habitats would develop into more distinctive riparian cover containing species such as Seepwillow, desert broom, or Desert willow. Estimated acreages for both scrub shrub and riparian scrub are included in the acreages provided in Table 3.4-1. It is estimated that if the active river channel is approximately 500 acres, between 25 and 60 percent would be occupied by riparian scrub in the with-project conditions, depending on water supply.

2.4.1.3.4 Wetlands

Wetlands can consist of open water, submerged vegetation, or mud flats, all requiring a high water table at or near the surface. Due to the porous soils found in the project area, an impervious lining would be required to maintain surface water. Excavation and layering of a silt-clay soil substrate overlain by a mixed gravel, and finally, cobble layer, is recommended. This soil structure would reduce disturbance of the soil-clay layer by reducing piping of fine material and reducing turbulent forces acting on the layer.

Stormwater Wetland: Stormwater wetland restoration would take place at individual stormwater outfalls. Techniques would be site-specific and would include grading or excavation, removal of exotics, and planting of suitable vegetation for the site conditions. Supplemental water would be required via an irrigation source, and structures would be installed to contain high-energy inputs and avoid erosion during storm events.

Emergent Wetland: Emergent wetlands contain primarily cattails (Typha domingensis), tule (Scirpus acutus), and sedges (Carex spp.). Because the river would not flow year round, the wetlands would need to be constructed specifically to retain water. In addition to grading and excavation, an impermeable layer would be added to retain water on site.

Rio Salado Oeste 2-9 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement 2.4.1.3.5 Lake Restoration

There are existing features created from aggregate mining operations at 27th and 37th Avenues that would require modification to implement lake restoration. These modifications are recommended to better utilize the existing water and improve the functionality of these features. The existing banks would need to be reshaped for public safety and restoration. Potential substrate modification may be required to reduce the annual fluctuation in the lake levels. In addition, aeration would need to be considered to retain water quality.

Grading: Banks would be reshaped to create “irregular random terraces” (variable in length, width and depth below the water surface) that would become submerged to different depths to provide more diversity in the littoral zone. The littoral zone is the nearshore area where sunlight penetrates all the way to the sediment and allows aquatic plants to grow. The irregularity and randomness of the terraces provides more opportunities for the establishment of submerged, floating, and emergent vegetation and a more diverse and natural shoreline habitat. The random terracing would provide different thermo strata for aquatic organisms, potentially improving mixing and maintaining a less stratified body of water, making it less susceptible to turnover (reducing oxygen levels). These terraces or shelves may be exposed periodically, functioning as emergent wetlands or mud flats during seasonal fluctuations in the lake level. The terraces, when exposed, provide an opportunity for voluntary native vegetation to become established. When these areas are again submerged, some of this vegetation would persist. Vegetation unable to survive the wetter conditions would contribute to the organic content of the benthic zone. The productivity of the benthic zone is largely dependent on the organic content of the sediment and amount of physical structure.

Substrate: It would be necessary to modify the substrate of existing bodies of water within the study area to implement restoration at the lakes. This may include the addition of impermeable materials to both maintain water elevations and grow vegetation. There are various alternatives for lake bottoms that improve the benthic zone productivity. There are tradeoffs in productivity, refuge availability, diversity, and food production associated with the various lake bottom characteristics. A sandy substrate contains relatively small amounts of organic matter for organisms and provides limited protection from predation. Higher plant growth is limited and sparse in sandy sediment; the sand is unstable and nutrient deficient. A rocky bottom has a high diversity of potential habitats offering protection (refuge) from predators, substrate for attached algae, and pockets of organic “ooze.” A flat, mucky bottom offers abundant food for benthic organisms; however, there is less protection and the diversity of structural habitats may be reduced unless higher plants colonize the lake bottom.

2.4.1.3.6 Invasive Species Management

Invasive Species Removal/Control: It would be necessary to remove and manage invasive species such as salt cedar and Arundo with project implementation. This would likely require physical removal and ongoing maintenance through the life of the project. Salt cedar is currently found in stands throughout the study area. Arundo, though not yet a significant problem in Rio Salado Oeste 2-10 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement Arizona, is a problem in neighboring California. A stand of Arundo can be found on the south side of the river near a stormwater outfall at 43rd Avenue.

2.4.1.3.7 River Channel Restoration

Project implementation would restore approximately eight miles of river channel to a more natural state based on hydraulics and geomorphology. This work would be conducted along the entire length of the Salt River from 19th Avenue west to 83rd Avenue. The restoration would be accomplished by grading and terracing to help recreate an active channel through the entire reach. Average depth of grading is assumed to be five feet, with a width varying from 200 to 400 feet. The average width of the river channel, including adjacent river terrace, throughout the study area would be approximately 500 feet. The channel design passes a five-year event (~22,000 cfs) with occasional flooding on the terrace two to four feet in depth flowing at approximately 1-7 ft/s. Due to a drop in the channel downstream of the 35th Avenue Bridge, a grade control structure is recommended in that vicinity. At this time, erosion and scour do not appear to be a concern with project features or infrastructure. However, should it appear in future analysis that it is a concern, appropriate protection would be included. An estimated 660,000 cubic yards of material would be removed from the channel to implement this measure. Material removed would be native riverbed material, and would utilized on site for terracing and construction of other project components, such as lake restoration.

River Channel Habitats: The river channel itself can include different habitat cover types depending on site specific conditions. These may include dry river bottom, emergent wetland, riparian scrub or desert scrub. The team assumed that after construction, a low flow channel similar to that in the Rio Salado Project area and the existing channel in the reach near 43rd Avenue, would become established. The total acreage of this low flow channel through the project reach was assumed to be 170 acres. It was projected that between 10-20% of that would become vegetated with emergent wetlands. The remainder of the channel would vegetate with either riparian scrub or desert scrub depending on conditions within this active channel.

2.4.1.3.8 Operation, Maintenance, Repair, Replacement and Rehabilitation

Operation, Maintenance, Repair, Replacement and Rehabilitation (OMRR&R) activities would occur after the project is constructed in order to keep project features functioning as designed. These activities may include:

• maintenance and replacement of pumps, pipelines, and other water delivery and irrigation infrastructure features; • vector control; • environmental monitoring, and; • periodic removal of sediment, surface reshaping, or replanting of project features damaged by flood events.

Rio Salado Oeste 2-11 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement The types of OMRR&R activities necessary would generally be the same for each construction alternative, although the level of effort would be proportional to the amount of new habitat created and the extent of structural features built for that alternative. Alternative 2 would require the least amount of OMRR&R, while Alternatives 5, 5A and 5B would require the greatest amount of OMRR&R because they restore the largest amounts of acres.

Maintenance and Replacement of Water Distribution System and Irrigation Infrastructure

Preventive maintenance and routine repairs would be performed on an as-needed basis on pumps and pipelines, diversion structures, irrigation canals and ditches, and drip irrigation equipment (inspections would occur more frequently).

Vector Control

Depending upon the duration and frequency of surface water flow in wetland and riparian habitat areas, the implementation of vector control management activities may be required to protect public health. Management activities that may be implemented to reduce potential habitat and inhibit the development of mosquito larvae include:

• providing pulse flows/periodic flushes; • removing vegetation to increase wind-driven circulation; • scheduling irrigation to avoid creating shallow ponded areas; • stocking mosquito fish in areas where a regular source of standing water is available; • spraying larvicides such as Bacillus thuringiensis israeliensis and Bacillus sphaericus at a frequency of every two to four weeks during the mosquito season, and; • applying a broad spectrum adulticide such as Malathion in the event of an imminent public health threat. Environmental Monitoring

Monitoring of habitat and wildlife would occur periodically. This would include monitoring water quality and water supplies as well as vegetation monitoring and management. During the first five years following construction of the project, the Corps would share responsibility for monitoring water quality and the success of the restoration components with the project sponsors. In the succeeding years, monitoring would be accomplished by the non-federal sponsor (City of Phoenix). Appendix N of the Feasibility Report contains a Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan prepared by the Corps for this project.

Sediment Removal

During high flows, substantial quantities of sediment may be deposited in channelized portions of the Salt River or in newly established habitat areas. To maintain the flow conveyance capacity of the river, channelized portions would need to be excavated and reshaped to restore

Rio Salado Oeste 2-12 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement design specifications if conveyance is significantly affected. Sediment removal would occur on an as-needed basis (inspections would occur more frequently).

For features within the floodplain, regrading and excavation was assumed to be needed once every ten years. It was assumed that for the stormwater outfalls, 50 percent of the construction quantity would need to be regraded in this period. The restored wetlands at existing lakes (gravel pits) would require regrading and excavation once every 20 years of up to one foot of material over the wetlands. The active channel would require regrading up to once every 20 years for up to 50 percent of the estimated construction quantity, or 330,000 cubic yards.

2.4.2 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE (FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT)

Under the No-Action Alternative, the Corps would take no action to restore the ecosystem and wildlife habitat within the study area. Opportunities for incidental flood damage reduction, noise reduction, water and air quality improvements, aesthetic resource benefits and passive recreation also would not be realized. Although it is possible that local agencies would implement limited improvements, restoration efforts would not occur on the scale of the proposed project. The existing and future without-project conditions are discussed later in this document. Acres of habitat associated with each action alternative are displayed in Table 2-3 below.

2.4.3 ALTERNATIVE 2

This alternative includes the modification of existing stormwater outfall areas to improve retention and water spreading as well as increase the existing habitat currently supported by these outfalls. It also includes modification and/or restructuring of the primary conveyance channel to a more natural state by grading and terracing the river corridor from 19th to 83rd Avenues. No additional water source is included in this alternative other than temporary irrigation to establish vegetation.

Table 2-4.1 of Section 2.4.1.1 above lists the locations of each stormwater outfall and the amount of habitat acreage that could be supported by the water available at each site. The acreage of habitat that could be supported was based on utilizing one-half of the estimated water supply currently found at each site. It was assumed that when stormwater wetland is combined with cottonwood/willow riparian, the wetland would utilize one-third of the potential supply, with the cottonwood/willow utilizing the remainder.

The 170 acres of restored channel are based upon an active channel varying in width from 200- 400 feet. A grade control structure is included in this measure due to an elevation drop in the vicinity of the 35th Avenue Bridge. It was assumed that approximately 10 percent of the channel would naturally regenerate emergent wetlands much like the upstream Rio Salado Phoenix reach low flow channel.

Rio Salado Oeste 2-13 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 2.4-2. Acres of habitat associated with each action alternative

Channel1 Other Cottonwood/ Open Scrub- Alternative Low-Flow In-Channel Riparian Mesquite Wetlands TOTALS Willow Water Shrub2 Channel Wetlands3 Scrub 2. Stormwater and Channel 170 17 125 66 43 0 305 28 737 4. Stormwater, Channel, Water Supply, Cottowood, Mesquite, 170 34 165 348 409 0 63 33 1188 Invasive and Emergent 5. Stormwater, Channel, Water Supply, Cottowood, Mesquite, 170 34 296 375 417 40 92 76 1466 Invasive and Emergent, Lake 5A. Wetland/riparian restoration in lieu of permanent open water 170 34 296 375 417 0 52 156 1466 and lakes 5B. Hybrid of 5 & 5A with one gravel pit restored to a lake and the 170 34 296 375 417 20 52 136 1466 other a wetland/ riparian complex

1 River channel consists of low flow, wetland or riparian scrub. 2 Scrub shrub acres are dispersed among and between the other restored cover types within the floodplain. 3 Alternative 2 assumes that 10% of the low-flow channel would consist of wetlands; the remaining alternatives assume that 20% of the low-flow channel would consist of wetlands.

Rio Salado Oeste 2-14 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement 2.4.4 ALTERNATIVE 4

The major components of this alternative include stormwater, channel restoration, water supply, cottonwood, mesquite, invasive control, emergent wetlands.

Stormwater and Channel: This alternative includes the stormwater wetlands and channel restoration measures described in Alternative 2. It was assumed that with implementation of this alternative, however, that 20 percent of the channel would regenerate to emergent wetland vegetation due to additional water supply.

Water Supply: Effluent from the 23rd Avenue WWTP is the primary source of water available for the restoration project. The City of Phoenix estimates that approximately 8 mgd (8,964 ac-ft) is available to the project. This would require construction of a means to deliver effluent to the project from the 23rd Avenue WWTP. Distribution of water would be through a combination of flood and drip irrigation. The water supply plan is described in detail in Appendix J of the Feasibility Report.

Revegetation: This alternative would restore cottonwood/willow riparian stands adjacent to water sources and low terraces throughout the study area, mesquite would also be restored with this alternative. Total acreages of each cover type are shown in the Table 2.5-1 above.

Invasive Control: It would be necessary to remove and manage invasive species such as salt cedar and Arundo with project implementation. This would likely require physical removal and ongoing maintenance through the life of the project. There is roughly 110 acres throughout the study area where invasive species are of concern.

2.4.5 ALTERNATIVE 5

The major components of this alternative include stormwater, channel restoration, water supply, cottonwood, mesquite, invasive control, emergent wetlands and lake.

Stormwater and Channel: This alternative includes the stormwater wetlands and channel restoration measures described in Alternative 2.

Water Supply: Effluent from the 23rd Avenue WWTP is the primary source of water available for the restoration project. The City of Phoenix estimates that approximately 8 mgd (8,964 ac-ft) is available to the project. This would require construction of a means to deliver effluent to the project from the 23rd Avenue plant. Distribution of water would be through a combination of flood and drip irrigation. The water supply plan is described in detail within Appendix J of the Feasibility Report.

Revegetation: This alternative would restore cottonwood/willow riparian stands adjacent to water sources and low terraces throughout the study area. Mesquite would also be restored with this alternative. Total acreages of each cover type are shown in the Table 2.5-1, above.

Rio Salado Oeste 2-15 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement Invasive Control: It would be necessary to remove and manage invasive species such as salt cedar and Arundo with project implementation. This would likely require physical removal and ongoing maintenance through the life of the project. There is roughly 110 acres throughout the study area where invasive species are of concern.

Lake: There are existing features created from aggregate mining operations at 27th and 37th Avenues that would require modification to implement lake restoration. These modifications are recommended to better utilize the existing water and improve the functionality of these features. The existing banks would need to be reshaped for public safety and restoration. Potential substrate modification may be required to reduce the annual fluctuation in the lake levels. In addition, aeration would need to be considered to retain water quality.

Alternative 5 inclues approximatley 5.4 million cubic yards of regrading to implement the lake restoration measure. An additional 212,000 cubic yards are included for lining material to reduce infiltration and maintain open water.

2.4.6 ALTERNATIVE 5A (RECOMMENDED PLAN)

The major components of this alternative include stormwater, channel restoration, water supply, cottonwood, mesquite, invasive control, emergent wetlands and lake.

Stormwater and Channel: This alternative includes the stormwater wetlands and channel restoration measures described in Alternative 2.

Water Supply: Effluent from the 23rd Avenue WWTP is the primary source of water available for the restoration project. The City of Phoenix estimates that approximately 8 mgd (8,964 ac-ft) is available to the project. This would require construction of a means to deliver effluent to the project from the 23rd Avenue Plant. Distribution of water would be through a combination of flood and drip irrigation. The water supply plan is described in detail within Appendix J of the Feasibility Report.

Revegetation: This alternative would restore cottonwood/willow riparian stands adjacent to water sources and low terraces throughout the study area, Mesquite would also be restored with this alternative. Total acreages of each cover type are shown in the table above.

Invasive Control: It would be necessary to remove and manage invasive species such as salt cedar and Arundo with project implementation. This would likely require physical removal and ongoing maintenance through the life of the project. There is roughly 110 acres throughout the study area where invasive species are of concern.

Lake: In lieu of lake restoration inluding permanent open water, this alternative includes regrading to existing gravel pits to restore them to the floodplain and installs emergent wetlands and riparian vegetation. Regrading of the gravel pits requires moving approximately 3.2 million cubic yards of material and installation of fine materials to support wetland/riparian vegetation.

Rio Salado Oeste 2-16 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement 2.4.7 ALTERNATIVE 5B

The major components of this alternative include stormwater, channel restoration, water supply, cottonwood, mesquite, invasive control, emergent wetlands and lake.

Stormwater and Channel: This alternative includes the stormwater wetlands and channel restoration measures described in Alternative 2.

Water Supply: Effluent from the 23rd Avenue WWTP is the primary source of water available for the restoration project. The City of Phoenix estimates that approximately 8 mgd (8,964 ac-ft) is available to the project. This would require construction of a means to deliver effluent to the project from the 23rd Avenue Plant. Distribution of water would be through a combination of flood and drip irrigation. The water supply plan is described in detail within Appendix J of the Feasibility Report.

Revegetation: This alternative would restore cottonwood/willow riparian stands adjacent to water sources and low terraces throughout the study area mesquite would also be restored with this alternative. Total acreages of each cover type are shown in the table above.

Invasive Control: It would be necessary to remove and manage invasive species such as salt cedar and Arundo with project implementation. This would likely require physical removal and ongoing maintenance through the life of the project. There is roughly 110 acres throughout the study area where invasive species are of concern.

Lake: With this alternative the lake restoration is a variation of alternatives 5 and 5A with one gravel pit converted to a lake and the other a wetland riparian complex.

2.4.8 WATER DEMAND

Available sources for the project include effluent and harvested stormwater. Approximately 8 mgd (8,961 ac-ft/yr) of effluent would be made available from the 23rd Avenue WWTP. Stormwater runoff within the project area was also calculated based upon average monthly rainfall in Phoenix, and approximately 2,900 ac-ft can be expected to run off into the project area from the approximately eight adjacent outfalls. Water demand for individual alternatives is summarized in the table below, with more detail included in Appendix B of the Feasibility Report, Water Budget Report and Interior Drainage Report. Table 2.4-3. Water Demand for Alternative Plans

Alternative Water Demand (ac-ft) Water Demand (mgd) Alternative 2 1,583 1.41

Alternative 4 4,701 4.20 Alternative 5 7,752 6.92 Alternative 5A 9,293 8.30 Alternative 5B 9,234 8.24

Rio Salado Oeste 2-17 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement 2.5 CHOOSING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Cost-Effectiveness (CE) and Incremental Cost Analyses (ICAs) were performed on the above alternatives. CE identifies the least-costly solution for each level of output. The three criteria used for identifying non-cost-effective plans or combinations include (1) the same level of output could be produced by another plan at less cost, (2) a larger output level could be produced at the same cost, or (3) a larger output level could be produced at lower cost.

ICA compares the incremental costs for each additional unit of output. The first step in developing “best buy” plans is to determine the incremental cost per unit. The plan with the lowest incremental cost per unit over the No-Action Alternative is the first incremental best buy plan. Plans that have a higher incremental cost per unit for a lower level of output are eliminated. The next step is to recalculate the incremental cost per unit for the remaining plans. This process is reiterated until the lowest incremental cost per unit for the next level of output is determined. The intent of the incremental analysis is to identify increases in cost relative to output.

In addition to the five project alternatives, four additional alternatives were evaluated during policy review to assure that the Cost Effectiveness and Incremental Cost Analysis provided an evaluation of alternatives covering a full range of both output and cost. These added alternatives contain the same project measures but are smaller combinations of the project alternatives described in detail in the EIS. These alternatives include:

Partial: This alternative restores only the portion of Salt River from 19th to 35th Avenues without any restoration of existing gravel pit lake. It includes capture of storm water from only 4 outfalls. Approximately 270 acres are required for this alternative and restored areas include 15 acres of emergent wetlands, 30 acres of cottonwood-willow, 30 acres of mesquite, and 75 acres of riparian scrub. In addition the low flow channel would encompass approximately 48 acres.

Refine 1: This alternative includes restoration of the river channel from 19th to 83rd Avenues, modification of existing storm water outfalls and restoration of associated habitats and restoration of the two existing gravel pit lakes. Approximately 1024 acres are required to implement this alternative. Acres restored with this alternative include: cottonwood-willow 210, mesquite 56, wetlands 140, low flow channel 170, riparian scrub 125 and the remaining areas would be scrub shrub.

Refine 2: This refinement restores the river from 19th to 83rd Avenues and includes the same features as Alternative 5A but is scaled back to restore much less cottonwood-willow and mesquite habitats. Approximately 1300 acres are required to implement this alternative. Acres restored include: cottonwood-willow 204, mesquite 110, wetlands 140, low flow channel 170, riparian scrub 125 and the remaining areas would be scrub shrub.

Refine 3: This refinement also restores the river from 19th to 83rd Avenues without restoration of the gravel pit lakes and less acreage of cottonwood-willow and mesquite. Approximately 1130 acres are required to implement this alternative. Acres restored include: cottonwood-

Rio Salado Oeste 2-18 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement willow 169, mesquite 102, wetlands 92, low flow channel 170, riparian scrub 125 and the remaining areas would be scrub shrub.

2.5.1 HYDROGEOMORPHIC MODEL (HGM)

The HGM analysis provides quantitative estimates of projected hydrogeomorphic changes over the period of analysis for the alternatives, and also provides a means of comparing the hydrogeomporhic changes of the different alternatives, including the No-Action alternative. HGM benefits are expressed as Functional Capacity Units (FCUs). Members of the HGM team develop Functional Capacity Indices, which are the indices within the ecosystem that can be quantified to present a range of how the ecosystem is functioning and how it would function with different alternatives. Indices include such functions as: floodwater detention, internal nutrient cycling, organic carbon export, removal and sequestration of elements and compounds, maintenance of characteristic plant communities, and wildlife habitat maintenance. These FCIs can then be multiplied by acreages to derive Functional Capacity Units, or the unit that provides a means of assessing the gains or losses in functional value for a single target year of interest. For all alternatives, a baseline condition of 580 FCUs is used. The FCUs are averaged over the period of analysis for the project (51 years for this study) to determine Average Annual FCUs (AAFCUs) for each alternative. This analysis includes the AAFCUs for each of the alternatives for purposes of comparison. The detailed HGM analysis is included as Appendix I of the Feasibility Report.

Rio Salado Oeste 2-19 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement 2.5.2 COST-EFFECTIVE ALTERNATIVES

An alternative is cost effective if it provides greater AAFCU output for the same or lesser cost than another alternative. Table 2.3-1 shows the cost effective alternatives.

Table 2.5-1. Cost-Effective Alternatives

Alternative AAFCU AA Cost* AAC/AAFCU* 2 51 $2,443 $47.73 4 165 $8,022 $48.55 5A 267 $12,334 $46.15 Partial 33 $1,684 $49.34 Refine 1 184 $7,553 $41.05 Refine 2 187 $8,309 $44.52 Refine 3 87 $5,678 $65.41 *Dollar figures are in thousands.

2.5.3 INCREMENTALLY EFFECTIVE ALTERNATIVES

Incremental cost analysis goes beyond cost effective analysis to identify “Best Buy” plans. Best Buy plans are those that have the lowest incremental average annual cost (AAC) per incremental increase in output. As can be seen below, Alternative Refine 1 provides 184 AAFCU and Alternative 5A provides 267. The AAC/AAFCU for Alternative 5A is about ten percent higher than Alternative Refine 1, and the incremental AAC per incremental AAFCU is about 33 percent higher than Alternative Refine 1. However, Alternative 5A provides 83 AAFCUs more than Alternative Refine 1, representing an increase in output of over 45 percent. .

Table 2.5-2. Incrementally Cost-Effective Alternatives

Incremental Alternative AAFCU AA Cost* Cost/AAFCU* Cost/Incremental AAFCU* Refine 1 184 $7,553 $41.05 $41.0 5A 267 $12,106 $45.34 $54.7 * Dollar figures are in thousands.

Based on the HGM and ICA analyses, Alternative 5A is NER plan. It is cost effective and provides the highest environmental outputs.

Rio Salado Oeste 2-20 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement 2.6 RECREATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION

2.6.1 INTRODUCTION

The Rio Salado Oeste Project provides a unique opportunity to enhance natural resource-based recreation and environmental education. The restoration of the dry Salt River channel would bring a riparian open space feature to the rapidly expanding Laveen and Estrella Planning Areas. Rio Salado Oeste would provide a habitat and recreational connection to the desert riparian habitat corridor created by the Rio Salado and Tres Rios Projects. By connecting the eight mile gap between the two projects, Rio Salado Oeste would enhance the unique recreation and education opportunities for residents and out-of-town visitors.

Alternative formulation for the project focused on the ecosystem restoration itself. The associated recreation plan has been developed by the City of Phoenix. The recreation plan was added to the restoration plans after the ecosystem restoration alternatives were completed in compliance with Corps' policies on recreation development at ecosystem restoration projects. Recreation features are ancillary to the ecosystem restoration, do not degrade the restoration value but take advantage of the recreational and educational opportunities provided, and follow the checklist of cost shareable recreation features. The Corps and the City of Phoenix would cost-share the recreation plan as allowed by Corps’ policies. The conceptual recreation plan is shown in Figure 2.6-1.

2.6.2 VISITATION ESTIMATES

Drawing on a population base of over two million in the Valley, it is estimated that visitation to the Rio Salado Oeste Project would exceed 350,000 annually (Table 2.6-1). Primary use times for this unique resource would coincide with the “visitor season” between October and May when temperatures are moderate.

Rio Salado Oeste 2-21 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement Table 2.6-1. Rio Salado Oeste Recreation Plan Baseline Visitation Estimate

Days Turnover/Day Visits Winter (Oct-May) 243 Prime Time 78 1.50 160,875 Non-Prime Time 165 .50 113,438 Winter Total 274,313 Summer (Jun -Sep) 122 Prime Time 36 1.00 49,500 Non-Prime Time 86 0.25 29,563 Summer Total 79,063 Grand Total (by vehicle) 353,376 Add - Arrive by Alternative Mode (10%) 35,338 Total Visitation 388,714 Less Transfers (10%) 38,871 Baseline Visitation for Benefit Analysis (rounded) 350,000 Note: Based upon parking capacity for 500 spaces. Average of 2.75 Persons/Vehicle

2.6.3 RECREATION PLAN FEATURES

The City of Phoenix developed the recreation plan for the project, which may be found in Appendix L of the Feasibility Report. This recreation plan would be implemented for all five action alternatives. Major recreation features include multipurpose trails, shelters, signage, shelters, utilities, park furniture, and interpretive media. Access points are identified in the plan, with four drive-in points with parking facilities and five smaller access points for walk-in use. Additionally, nine minor points for walk-in access from adjacent neighborhoods would be completed. Table 2.6-2 below includes the recreation features. Figure 2.6-1 depicts the conceptual Rio Salado Oeste Recreation Plan.

Rio Salado Oeste 2-22 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement Table 2.6-2. Rio Salado Oeste Recreation Plan Components

Component Quantity Unit Cost Recreation Cost

Site Preparation Site Prep to include: clearing, grubbing, and grading 9 Lump Sum $250,000.00 Vegetative Restoration (Drive in Access) 4 Lump Sum $600,000.00 Vegetative Restoration (Walk in Access) 5 Lump Sum $75,000.00 Access and Circulation Entry Road w/Turnaround to include: curb, gutter, driveway, & road 4 Lump Sum $600,000.00 Parking lot 500 $1500/space $750,000.00 Sidewalks and Ramps 40,000 sf. $6.00 each $240,000.00 Multi-Use Trails (24mi * 5280 * 5ft) 47000 $6.00 / sy $282,000.00 Bridges and Culverts (small) @ Canals, and Localized Drainage Areas 10 $7,500 each $75,000.00

Protection Access Control Access Control Gates (vehicular) 10 $7,500 each $75,000.00 Access Control Gates (pedestrian) 18 $3,500 each $63,000.00 Handrails 5,000 l.f. $50.00 each $250,000.00 Guardrails 3,000 l.f. $50.00 each $150,000.00 Fencing 5,000 l.f. $30.00 each $150,000.00 $125.00 Walls 1,500 l.f. each $187,500.00 Security lights 100 $4,000 each $400,000.00 Signage $15,000 Entrance identification signage 8 each $120,000.00 Traffic Control (vehicular) 20 $500 each $10,000.00 Traffic Control (pedestrian) 27 $500 each $13,500.00 Instructional/Directional 45 $500 each $22,500.00

Shelters $60,000 Picnic (large) 5 each $300,000.00 $25,000 Picnic (small) 5 each $125,000.00 $250,000 Restroom Facility/Comfort Station 5 each $1,250,000.00 $25,000 Shelter w/Bulletin Boards 4 each $100,000.00 $40,000 Trail Shelter w/Railing (large) 9 each $360,000.00 $30,000 Trail Shelter w/Railing (medium) 4 each $120,000.00 $20,000 Trail Shelter w/Railing (small) 10 each $200,000.00 Utilities Municipal Water Supply and Wastewater Disposal 5 Lump Sum $500,000.00

Rio Salado Oeste 2-23 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement Storm Drainage 4 Lump Sum $80,000.00 Drinking Fountain w/Chiller 12 $5,000 each $60,000.00 Electical 4 Lump Sum $200,000.00 Park Furniture Benches: 14 $1,500 each $21,000.00 Off-the-Shelf 40 $800 each $32,000.00 Recycled/Custom 50 $500 each $25,000.00 Picnic Tables 40 $1000 each $40,000.00 Trash Receptacles 75 $500 each $37,500.00 Interpretive Guidance Media Display Boards 50 $600 each $30,000.00 Interpretive Markers 100 $600 each $60,000.00 Bulletin Boards 9 $2,500 each $22,500.00 Subtotal $7,876,500.00 Contingency 20% $1,575,300 PED+EDC 11% $1,039,698 S&A 7% $681,947 Total $11,173,445

Rio Salado Oeste 2-24 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The Rio Salado Oeste study area consists of an eight mile reach of the Salt River and adjacent lands in and near southwestern Phoenix, Maricopa County, Arizona. More specifically, the study area consists of the Salt River corridor from 19th Avenue downstream (west) to 83rd Avenue, between Lower Buckeye Road and Baseline Road. This study area is three miles wide and encompasses approximately 23.5 square miles. The much smaller project implementation area consists of the 100-year floodplain of the Salt River within the overall study area (Figure 1.6-2). The project implementation area averages two-thirds of a mile in width, and consists of approximately 3,315 acres.

The regulations at 40 CFR 1502.15 require that an environmental impact statement (EIS) by prepared to describe the environment of the area to be affected by the alternative actions being considered. The area affected by the proposed action is defined as the Salt River between 19th Avenue and 83rd Avenue (Rio Salado Oeste reach). This chapter provides a description of the existing and future without-project conditions for a 50-year period of analysis within the study area. The future without-project conditions serve as the baseline for determining the nature and magnitude of environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives (refer to the Feasibility Report for information on the period of analysis).

A variety of resources exist in the study area that may or may not be significantly impacted by the proposed restoration project. This chapter describes the baseline environmental conditions for 13 resources categories:

• Topography and Geology • Hydrology and Water Resources • Water Quality • Biological Resources • Cultural Resources • Aesthetic Resources • Air Quality • Noise • Social and Economic Resources • Transportation • Land Use • Recreation • Public Health and Safety

The scope of the descriptions provided to characterize each resource is guided by the scope of the proposed action as it relates to a particular resource category, which generally defines a region of influence for each resource category. The region of influence consists of the geographic area in which the proposed action is expected to have a direct or indirect effect on the resource.

Rio Salado Oeste 3-1 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.1 GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY

This section describes the topography and geographic conditions of the Rio Salado Oeste study area. This section is based on the geotechnical analysis in the Rio Salado, Salt River, Arizona: Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1998).

3.1.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY

The study area is located in the eastern portion of Maricopa County. It is located just north of the southern City Limits of Phoenix, and north of South Mountain. The terrain varies from hills and rock outcrops, south of the study area, to alluvium within the river floodplain. Slope angles in the study area range from 0–2% (Maricopa County, 1992). The project area is in the Phoenix basin of the Salt River Valley. The Phoenix metropolitan area is geomorphically located within the Gila Lowland Section of the Sonoran Desert Subprovince, a part of the Southern Basin and Range Physiographic Province. This province is characterized by broad, gently sloping, connected alluvial valleys (basins) bounded by moderately high, rugged, northwest- to southeast- trending mountain ranges. During the late Miocene epoch (Tertiary period), the mountain ranges were extensively dissected, uplifted, and downdropped by northwest- to southwest- and east- to west-trending sub-parallel normal faults. Extensive volcanic activity accompanied the faulting. From the late Miocene until the late Pliocene, the ranges deeply eroded and filled their downdropped areas (basins) with sediments, which were later consolidated into sedimentary rock. From the end of the Pliocene until recent (Holocene) time, the basins, including the Salt River Valley, filled with unconsolidated and occasional semiconsolidated sediment eroded from the ranges. The thickest accumulations of valley alluvium formed during the early to middle Quaternary period. Alluvium of the Salt River Valley is in the final stages of development, as evidenced by the numerous low-lying isolated hills (inselbergs) that project above the valley surfaces. These hills represent peaks of former mountain ranges that are now almost completely buried by alluvial material. The mountain ranges that border the project area consist mostly of Tertiary-age sedimentary and volcanic rocks that lie unconformable upon an ancient Precambrian igneous and metamorphic basement complex. The complex is composed predominantly of igneous granite and diorite, metamorphosed schist, gneiss and volcanic rock. These Tertiary rocks are made up of volcanic basalt, andesite, rhyolite, sedimentary sandstone, siltstone and conglomerate.

The Phoenix basin consists of Quaternary sediments that constitute the valley fill. These consist mostly of poorly- to well-consolidated (cemented) and unconsolidated gravel, sand, silt and clay, representing several environments and ages of deposition. Total thickness of alluvial materials ranges from nearly nothing along the mountain fronts, to nearly 10,000 feet under the valley interior. Valley fill materials tend to be of a coarser consistency near the mountain fronts and finer in the interior of the valley. Near the Salt River, valley fills have been eroded as the river formed terraces during its evolution.

Rio Salado Oeste 3-2 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement 3.1.2 LOCAL GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY

The Rio Salado Oeste study area extends east and west along the Salt River. The river flows west into the Phoenix basin from the Superstition and Goldfield mountain ranges. The Salt River floodplain is located within the gentle, flat slopes of the basin. The predominant surface materials within the study area consist of Quaternary-age river sediments, deposited as alluvium, and terraces, to a lesser extent, sheetwash-deposited alluvium and slope-deposited colluvium. Thick layers of alluvium and terrace have accumulated within the major streams, tributaries and floodplains of the Salt River. Streambed alluvium and terraces are flanked, covered and underlain by thinner layers of wind- and sheetwash-deposited alluvium and bedrock colluvium.

Quaternary sediments consist of:

1) Salt River Valley alluvium and terraces — unconsolidated to well-cemented gravel and boulders interbedded with irregular silt, sand and gravel lenses; and

2) Colluvium — loose- to well-cemented silt, sand, clay and gravel.

Salt River Valley terrace deposits lie exposed above the Salt River channel in locations throughout the project area. The terraces consist of thick, well-cemented to non-cemented sand and gravel and are considered older than the alluvium within the confines of the Salt River. Contacts between the two types of deposits are gradational at depth, which means they are undifferentiated and both remain of Quaternary age. The terrace and alluvial deposits overlie thick Tertiary sedimentary and volcanic rocks beneath the basin. They interface with Tertiary rocks along mountain ranges and inselbergs. The very thick Precambrian basement complex underlies basin terrace and alluvium at maximum depths greater than 3,300 feet.

3.1.3 SOILS

Two major soil associations are found within the study area. Within, and immediately adjacent to, the river is the Carrizo-Brios Association, with the Gilman-Estrella-Avondale Association to the south. The Carrizo-Brios Association is characterized by deep, excessively drained soils and nearly level to gently sloping, gravelly sandy loams and sandy loams in stream channels on low- stream terraces. The Gilman-Estrella-Avondale Association is characterized by deep, well- drained soils and nearly level loams and clay loams on valley plains and low stream terraces (Maricopa County, 1992).

3.1.4 RIVER TOPOGRAPHY

The Salt River is characterized by scour-and-fill events, floods and channel shifts. The river was once characterized by meandering flows throughout the river system. Recent urban development in the region has changed the Salt River from a meandering channel to a straight channel with high banks in several reaches. In the central portion of the study area is a large groundwater retention/recharge basin.

Rio Salado Oeste 3-3 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement The Salt River channel has shifted within the floodplain several times from the 1880s to the present, at times meandering on the north side of the floodplain and on the south side during other times. Channel shifts have distributed alluvial material across the entire width of the floodplain. Alluvium deposited by the river consists of cobbles, sands, silts and clays from numerous tributary streams within the watershed.

Scour-and-fill events over time have degraded the river in some areas and improved it in others. The scour-and-fill transportation of sediment has produced numerous thick deposits within the fluvial system: cobble lag surfaces, sand sheets (macro-forms), channel side bars, mid-channel bars, point bars and overbank deposits. Many of these deposits have recently been disturbed by intensive sand and gravel mining. Mining activity alters later transportation events by removing and compacting material, thereby reducing the amount of sediment transported and loosening other sediments. Sand pits serve as depositional traps for fine sediments.

Sediment transported, in a scour-and-fill setting, will tend to move in waves or pulses, rather than at a constant rate over time. Large amounts of sediment are periodically moved downstream during flow events. Flood flows are probably the most important events in the transportation of sediment and have the highest potential to move material. During a flood, the bulk of the sediment is moved as bedload; however, there is also movement of sediment as washload in solution and suspension. Prior to the damming of the Salt River, smaller flow events moved sediment (fine sands, silts and clays) by incising downward into the larger slugs of sediment found in the channel. The amount of sediment moved in lesser events is small when compared with the amount of material moved during a flood.

3.1.5 GRADIENT

The general gradient of Salt River, between Granite Reef and the confluence with Gila River, is about 0.0021 feet of vertical drop per 1,000 feet of horizontal distance, although there are numerous local variations. The gradient has decreased to a small degree because of erosion in the upper reaches and deposition in the lower reaches.

3.1.6 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY

Faults in central Arizona are generally short, discontinuous, normal faults, some of which have been interpreted to displace Quaternary formations. Most fall within the Jerome-Wasatch Structural Zone, an approximately 47-mile-wide band that extends from Utah into Mexico. In Utah, the zone is associated with current earthquake activity and displays evidence of abundant Quaternary faulting. In Arizona, the zone includes Main Street Fault, in the northwest corner of the state, and Verde Fault, approximately 56 miles north of the Rio Salado Oeste study area. Both faults are considered to be potentially active. The proposed project is located in Zone 1 of the Seismic Zone Map of the Contiguous States, an area of low seismicity. Approximately 30 earthquakes, with maximum epicentral intensities between II and VI on the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale (MM), have occurred within this seismic zone from 1870 through 1980. The seismic historical record for the last 124 years indicates that only one major damaging earthquake in the region has occurred. This 1887 earthquake was centered in Sonora, Mexico, which is outside Seismic Zone 1. The 7.2-MM Sonora earthquake was located more than 255

Rio Salado Oeste 3-4 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement miles from Tempe, Arizona and expressed 31 miles of surface rupture with approximately ten feet of normal displacement, causing rockfalls in the project study area. In 1974, events were located northeast of the study area, with recorded Richter Scale magnitudes of 2.5 to 3.0. A 2.1 was recorded in North Central Arizona, approximately 13 miles southwest of Kaibab on 9 August 2005, well outside the area of detection for Rio Salado Oeste.

3.1.7 SUBSIDENCE

Available information suggests that subsidence in the project area has not occurred. Ground failure in the form of (pumping) subsidence and earth fissures has occurred in other areas of the Phoenix Basin. The closest ground failure occurrences are near Luke Air Force Base, west of the study area, where one to three feet of subsidence has been measured and exhibits the shape of a two-mile-diameter “bowl” depression. Earth fissures and subsidence are both produced by groundwater withdrawal, whereby ground (soil) compresses (subsides) because it has lost the support of water within its pores. Earth fissures develop when the soil subsides differentially and pulls apart. The Phoenix area will continue to be affected by subsidence because of groundwater overdraft, principally where groundwater withdrawal is most severe.

3.1.8 REGULATORY SETTING

Topography and geological resources and issues related to geotechnical hazards are primarily under local jurisdiction. Local grading plans and ordinances contain policies for the protection of geologic features and avoidance of geologic hazards. Many local jurisdictions adopt the Uniform Building Code or adopt local building codes to ensure structures meet minimum safety standards. Building codes in each jurisdiction establish standards for construction depending on soil conditions, slopes and potential for ground movement and faulting.

3.2 HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES

The following discussion characterizes the hydrology and water quality conditions of Rio Salado Oeste. The information presented below is based primarily on the following reports:

• Rio Salado, Salt River, Arizona - Draft Feasibility Report and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1997), and;

• Tres Rios Feasibility Study, Salt River, Arizona (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2000)

A number of reference materials cited in the text below were used to characterize the relevant hydrologic and water quality conditions in the study area. Hydrologic investigations and water quality studies have been conducted for the feasibility study and are included in the main Feasibility Report.

Rio Salado Oeste 3-5 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement 3.2.1 REGIONAL HYDROLOGY AND SURFACE WATER RESOURCES

3.2.1.1 Background

The Salt River drains 14,500 square miles of mountainous desert terrain in central and eastern Arizona and is the largest tributary to Gila River. The river rises in the White Mountains of eastern Arizona and flows generally westward to its junction with the , a northern tributary that drains the edge of the Colorado Plateau near Flagstaff, Arizona. From this confluence near the City of Mesa, the Salt River flows westward across the broad Salt River Valley to its confluence with the Gila River, about 14 miles west of Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport. The Phoenix metropolitan area is near the center of the Gila River Basin and lies within the West Salt River Valley Subbasin of the Phoenix Active Management Area (Arizona Department of Water Resources, 1994). After its confluence with the Salt River, the Gila River continues westward and joins the Colorado River near Yuma, Arizona.

Most of the City of Phoenix, including the Rio Salado Oeste project implementation area, lies within the West Salt River Valley Subbasin. Annual average rainfall in the West Salt River Valley Subbasin is approximately eight inches (Table 3.7-1). Rainfall is less than the evapotranspiration rate in all months of the year. Precipitation is derived primarily from two types of weather systems: summer thunderstorms and regional storms. Summer thunderstorms in July and August typically develop from the flow of subtropical air masses from the Gulf of Mexico and the tropical eastern North Pacific. Regional storms from the Pacific Ocean generate gentle, widespread showers during December thru mid-March. Summers are hot, with daily temperatures exceeding 100° F from mid-June through August. During the summer, mean daily temperatures range from 65° F to 104° F. The relative humidity is low, ranging from approximately 20% to 50%. Winters are mild, with mean daily temperatures ranging from 35° F to 70° F.

3.2.1.2 Dam System

During the 20th century, the Phoenix area changed from a mainly agricultural region to a mainly urban region, resulting in significant changes in the physical characteristics of the rivers in the area. Agricultural and urban activities have given rise to an intricate network of structures associated with river use for irrigation, drainage, erosion protection and flood damage reduction. Numerous upstream dams on the Salt and Gila Rivers have radically altered the natural hydrologic regime of the rivers. See table 3.2-1 for a listing of the dams on the Salt, Verde, and Agua Fria and Gila Rivers.

The Salt River Project (SRP) operates six storage dams on the Salt and Verde Rivers and one diversion dam just east of the City of Mesa. Granite Reef Diversion Dam (Granite Reef) does not have any storage capacity. The purpose of this facility is to divert water released from the reservoirs into the Arizona Canal (for the area north of the Salt River), and the South Canal (for the area south of the Salt River). The canals supply the Phoenix Metropolitan Area with water for agricultural and municipal and industrial (M&I) use. Stored water is allocated based on water rights associated with the land in the SRP service area.

Rio Salado Oeste 3-6 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement All Salt River dams have hydrogenation capacity. Safety of Dams modifications (completed in 1996) to include a zone for flood control. The total space for water- supply storage behind these dams is 2,025,798 acre-feet (ac-ft) including the cities’ new conservation storage, with an additional 556,196 ac-ft for flood damage reduction at Roosevelt Dam. The Roosevelt is the largest reservoir of the SRP reservoir system. It stores runoff from about 5,800 square miles of the Salt River watershed.

Downstream of the , the Verde River discharges into the Salt River. The drainage area of the Verde River is about 6,700 square miles. Its flows are partially controlled by Horseshoe Dam (located furthest upstream) and Bartlett Dam (approximately 25 miles upstream of the confluence with Salt River), which provide an additional 287,403 ac-ft of storage. New Waddell Dam is located on Agua Fria River northwest of Phoenix and downstream of the study area.

Table 3.2-1. Major Dams and Reservoirs in the Gila River Basin

Date of Dam River Reservoir Storage (acre-feet) Origin 1927, mods Waddell Agua Fria Lake Pleasant 812,100 1994 Bartlett Verde Bartlett Lake 1939 178,186 1949, mods Horseshoe Verde Horseshoe Lake 109,217 1951, 1995 Stewart Mountain Salt Saguaro Lake 1930 69,765 Mormon Flat Salt Canyon Lake 1938 57,852 1927, mods Horse Mesa Salt Apache Lake 248,138 1992 1911, mods Roosevelt Salt Roosevelt Lake 1,653,043 1996 1928, mods Coolidge Gila San Carlos Lake 1,222,000 1994 Painted Rock Gila Painted Rock Lake 1959 2,500,000 Source: SRP, 2006

The dams have significantly altered the natural hydrologic regime of the lower Salt River and have changed both the magnitude and timing of flows. The system of dams has eliminated perennial flow and steady, high winter flows. Since Bartlett Dam began operating on the Verde River in 1938, the lower Salt River has contained water only as a result of controlled or uncontrolled releases from the Granite Reef Diversion Dam. During normal times, SRP releases water from the reservoirs to meet water needs in the Valley. When the reservoirs approach full capacity, a point which SRP is always fully aware, releases above the water order may b

Rio Salado Oeste 3-7 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement initiated. Water released in excess of the water order typically flows over or around Granite Reef Dam and flows into the normally dry Salt River channel. The actual amount is dependent upon numerous variables including: available storage space, forecasts, downstream impacts and constraints, and desired future storage levels. The Granite Reef Diversion Dam is located about three miles downstream of the Salt-Verde confluence, and is the most downstream SRP dam. The purpose of this facility is to divert upstream reservoir releases into the Arizona Canal (for the area north of Salt River), and the South Canal (for the area south of Salt River). The canal system generally follows the topographic contour of the Phoenix metropolitan area in order to provide gravity flow delivery of water to agricultural, municipal and industrial users. There are no releases during climatically drier years, as occurred between 1942 and 1964. Except for stormwater runoff, groundwater emergence and effluent, the Salt River is dry during those times.

Before 1938, an average of 413,000 ac-ft/year of water flowed through the 28-mile stretch of the Salt River between where McClintock Road crosses the Salt and the confluence of the Salt with the Gila and Agua Fria Rivers (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1997). The estimated pre- development, average annual discharge for the Salt-Verde drainage basin was about 1,250,000 ac-ft and had a median of about 950,000 afy (U.S. Geological Survey, 1991). Since 1965, the 28-mile stretch of the River has carried an average of only 293,000 ac-ft of water per year, with less than 10,000 ac-ft in almost three-fifths of the years (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1997). Hydrologic modeling used to develop a water-control plan for the Modified Theodore Roosevelt Dam indicates that water would have spilled over Granite Reef Diversion Dam in only 34 of 105 years under the current configuration of dam operations (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2000). The resulting frequency of spills is approximately once every three years. When water is spilled over the Granite Reef Diversion Dam, the flow is typically sustained for several days or more and of a significant magnitude. Since 1965, there have been about two releases per year. These releases have lasted an average of 22.5 days, with a peak mean daily flow of 13,960 cubic feet per second (cfs). The median predicted spill pattern at Granite Reef Diversion Dam has a peak discharge of 28,000 cfs, a five-day average flow rate of 15,000 cfs, and a ten-day average flow rate of 10,000 cfs (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2000).

Little data exists to document the pre-development, seasonal flow fluctuations in the Salt River. In the pre-settlement era, prior to 1900, the river was one of the few perennially watered riparian areas of the Sonoran Desert with highly productive cottonwood, willow and mesquite habitats. Analyses of pre-development conditions indicate that the Salt River streamflow infiltrated and recharged groundwater upstream from Indian Bend Wash near Scottsdale. Groundwater discharged to the channel provided perennial baseflow in downstream sections of the channel (U.S. Geological Survey, 1991). Under natural conditions, flows peaked in late winter (February and March), supplied by storms and snowmelt. Flows were lowest in June, averaging only 6% of the mean high flows in February. Data for 1965 through 1993 show flows below Granite Reef Dam occurring most frequently during March and April, and least frequently during July and August, much like the natural flow pattern. The system of dams upstream of the study area effectively delays the flows by one month. This delay becomes insignificant, however, in light of the length of periods without flow in a river that was perennial under natural conditions.

Rio Salado Oeste 3-8 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement 3.2.1.3 Flood Hazards

During periods of high spill water releases from the dams, flood damage may occur in the Phoenix metropolitan area. This happened in the 1970s and early 1980s. Spill water releases exceeded 100,000 cfs in the Salt River below Granite Reef in 1978, 1980, and 1993. These floods resulted in damages to residences and agricultural areas in and around the study area. Environmental managers have sought a clearer understanding of river forms and processes that are now partly natural but significantly modified. Figure 3.2-1 shows the limits of the 100-year floodplain within the study area. In general, the designated 100-year floodplain is narrowly confined within the limits of the channel banks, and ranges in width from several hundred feet to over one mile, depending on the location. Significant problems related to flooding within the study area include large flood flows that can:

• cause damage to agricultural and residential areas in and around the study area; • destroy habitat through inundation and scouring effects, and; • erode landfills, adding sediment, pollutants and debris to the study area.

The mean peak annual discharge on the Salt River was 32,000 cfs before 1938, and has been 16,500 cfs from 1938 to the present (Jones & Stokes, 2000). This apparent reduction in flood magnitude results from the frequency of low-flow years. Since 1938, the peak discharge has been greater than 10,000 cfs in only one fourth of the years. Before 1938, flows exceeded 10,000 cfs in two thirds of the years. Prior to damming, a peak annual discharge greater than 100,000 cfs occurred in only one year on record, while two such flows have occurred in the past 16 years. Cycles of the climatic regime and man-made alterations to the watershed surface have resulted in grater occurrences of extreme high flows in the latter period. Table 3.2-2, shows estimated flow values for variable frequency and duration flows within the Salt River channel near immediately upstream of the study area (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1997). The peak 100-year flood flow is 166,000 cfs.

Rio Salado Oeste 3-9 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement Table 3.2-2. Inundation-Duration Frequency Values for the Salt River

Frequency (Years) Duration 500 200 100 50 20 10 5 Discharge (cfs) Exceeded for Specified Duration, Salt River at Central Avenue(1) Peak 240,000 202,000 166,000 135,000 87,000 53,000 20,200 1 Day 190,000 145,000 100,000 70,000 40,000 21,000 8000 3 Day 100,000 75,000 60,000 40,000 22,000 11,000 3500 5 Day 70,000 55,000 40,000 29,000 15,000 7000 2100 10 Day 46,000 33,000 25,000 18,000 10,000 5200 1500 30 Day 25,000 19,000 15,000 10,000 5300 2700 800 60 Day 14,000 9000 7000 5000 2800 1400 (0)(2) (1) Discharges exceeded for specified frequencies, with durations greater than or equal to 1 day, are approximately equal throughout the Rio Salado Project reach. Central Avenue is used as a reference location. (2) During the 5-year event, the upstream release from the Salt River Project reservoirs does not last for 60 days. A flow rate of approximately 200 cfs is exceeded for 53 days during this event. Results are based upon simulation of Balanced Hydrographs. Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1997

3.2.1.4 Local Hydrologic Characteristics

The study area is located downstream of several other planned restoration projects, including the first phases of the Rio Salado Project located between upstream and downstream of the Tempe Town Lakes Project. The approximately 2-mile upstream section of the study area is surrounded by highly urbanized land-use areas. The lower five miles of the study area flow through a mix of residential and agricultural land-use areas with occasional commercial/industrial developments.

Numerous urban drainage channels are located in the study area. They discharge local stormwater runoff to the Salt River channel By way of eight different outfalls. Together, the outfalls discharge 2,863 ac-ft/year of stormwater during an average year of precipitation. Additional future outfalls may be implemented by the county at 51st Avenue (south) and 75th Avenue (north). While not a reliable constant source of project water, there are opportunities for future use of this water with proper design at the outfall locations. Currently, various forms of habitat are being supported by stormwater runoff and design of a restoration plan would include site-specific measures maximizing the use of that runoff.

3.2.2 GROUNDWATER

This section provides a brief overview of the hydrogeology, depth to groundwater and direction of groundwater flow in the Salt River Valley. The Salt River Valley lies within the Basin and Range physiographic province and is characterized by broad alluvial valleys separated by rugged mountains. The valley is underlain by a wide variety of unconsolidated to variably consolidated

Rio Salado Oeste 3-10 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement sedimentary deposits that are several thousand feet thick in places. The sediments include unconsolidated clay, silt, sand and gravel, caliche, gypsum, mudstone, siltstone, sandstone, conglomerate and anhydrite. Discontinuities lateral lenses and interbedded deposits may exist in older units where high-angle faults exist. Groundwater recharge of aquifer units within the lower Salt River Valley occurs primarily as rainfall-induced subsurface influx from the mountain– valley fringe. Rainfall on the valley floor is generally insufficient to contribute to groundwater recharge (U.S. Geological Survey, 1991).

Groundwater is regulated by the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR). The groundwater basin underlying lower Salt River Valley is located within the Phoenix Active Management Area (AMA). The Phoenix AMA comprises two distinct but interconnected alluvial groundwater basins: West Salt River Valley (WSRV) and East Salt River Valley (ESRV). These two units are divided by subsurface geologic outcroppings located near Priest Road in Tempe. Both basins generally comprise three separate hydrogeologic aquifer-layer units. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and ADWR have independently identified these units, although the descriptions and nomenclature used by these agencies differ slightly. The three units are: (1) Lower Alluvial Unit (LAU), (2) Middle Alluvial Unit (MAU) and (3) Upper Alluvial Unit (UAU). Groundwater within the aquifer units is generally unconfined. The Salt River flows over the UAU and was once the most important source of groundwater recharge for this unit. Composed predominantly of gravel and sand, the UAU ranges from 100 to 400 feet thick under the Salt River. The unit is thinnest near mountain fronts and bedrock outcrops, such as Tempe Butte and lower Papago Park. Water within the UAU is legally referred to as subflow to differentiate it from groundwater in the MAU and LAU. Historically, surface flows from streams and washes provided most of the water that recharges the UAU. Presently, the minor recharge sources, such as seepage from canals and irrigated land, underflow along major streams, and rainfall, have become more important.

Depth to groundwater through the project area varies from an average of 20 to 60 feet. In general, the depth to groundwater decreases to the west end of the study area where dewatering is required at 91st Avenue. In an analysis of ADWR well data and interpolation of surface water in gravel pits, there appears to be a zone of shallow (20-feet deep) groundwater between 51st and 19th Avenues in the river channel. This is likely due to excavation and is known to fluctuate as much as 20 feet annually (Rinker Materials Observation). Groundwater is being pumped in the vicinity of 23rd Avenue for sand and gravel mining where it contributes to the large lake near 27th Avenue. It was also assumed that the lake in the vicinity of 37th Avenue was excavated to groundwater depth, although observations in 2004 appear to indicate that the level has dropped significantly and that the elevations in the lake appear to be influenced by effluent discharge. Figure 3.3-1 shows the depth to groundwater along the Salt River between 19th Avenue and 83rd Avenue.

Rio Salado Oeste 3-11 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement 3.3 WATER QUALITY

3.3.1 CONTAMINANTS

Surface water and groundwater contaminants include naturally occurring and artificial (manmade) substances that can be introduced into a system from a variety of sources. Federal agencies, primarily the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and state agencies establish water quality standards which vary by water use (e.g., drinking water, irrigation, recreation). Contaminants in the surface waters and groundwater of Arizona fall into six categories: pesticides, metals, nutrients, ions, microorganisms and radiological substances. In addition to these six categories, Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) may be present in groundwater, but not surface water (Table 3.3-1). Similar quality issues exist for all water sources in the lower Salt River; contamination by VOCs and various metals, ions, nutrients, and herbicides. While VOCs often exceed drinking water standards in groundwater, they do not exceed standards for irrigation or wildlife uses.

As previously discussed, surface water naturally provides the main source of recharge for groundwater. Shallow groundwater in other reaches of the river often emerges in the channel, creating surface flows. CAP water and effluent from wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) and other industries contribute to both surface and subsurface flows. Thus, contaminants do not remain in one part of the system and may affect all water sources.

Salt River flows maintain high amounts of mineral content and total dissolved solid (TDS). When flood flows do occur, they commonly violate quality standards for fecal coliform bacteria. The Salt River water contains a sodium chloride character both above and below the SRP system dams due to salt springs upstream of the lakes. Verde River water has a lower amount of TDS than found in the Salt River water. The Verde water tends to lower the overall TDS content in flows downstream of their confluence. The quality of water would be sufficient to support native fish species; however elimination of the base flows does not allow it.

Rio Salado Oeste 3-12 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement Table 3.3-1. Types of Water Contaminants in the Lower Salt River

Contaminant Principal Contaminants Typical Sources Potential Health Impacts Category Volatile organic Organic solvents Landfills Carcinogen compounds Trichloroethene (TCE) Underground storage (VOCs) Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) tanks 1,1,1 Trichloroethane (TCA) Airports Chloroform High technology 1,1 Dichloroethylene (DCE) industry 1,1 Dichloroethane (DCA) Benzene Pesticides Dibromochloropropane (DBCP) Agriculture (soil Toxics Ethylene dibromide (EDB) fumigants) Carcinogen Urban runoff Metals Arsenic Landfills Toxics Barium Mines Carcinogen Boron Metal finishing Chromium Natural origin Copper Iron Lead Manganese Selenium Zinc Nutrients Nitrate Agriculture (fertilizers) Methemoglobinemia Wastewater treatment (blue-baby disease) Septic tanks Industrial manufacturing Ions Total dissolved solids (TDS) Mines Taste, hardness Sulfate Agriculture Laxative effect Chloride Natural origin Toxics Fluoride Micro- Fecal coliform Septic tanks Infectious disease Organisms Wastewater treatment Radiological Mines Carcinogen Natural origin

Source: Graf et al., 1994

The most prevalent water contaminants in the lower Salt River area are VOCs - organic solvents widely used by both small and large industries and airports and often found in landfills. VOCs are the primary contaminants associated with federal Superfund sites and State of Arizona Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund (WQARF) sites. They are most frequently present in water as a result of improper disposal of industrial solvents, degreasers, and other compounds. Major disposal practices that have led to groundwater contamination include injection of waste into dry wells, disposal in surface impoundments that leak, dumping into dry washes, unregulated landfills, and leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs). Water quality violations cited by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) show the presence of VOCs in

Rio Salado Oeste 3-13 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement groundwater in areas near every reach of the lower Salt River, especially in the central Phoenix area (Jones & Stokes, 2000). While VOC levels often exceed standards for drinking water, they generally meet standards for irrigation or wildlife uses. Metals as contaminants are not as extensively distributed as VOCs. Possible sources of metal contamination include landfills, mines, metal finishing and natural origins. The surface waters of both the Salt and Gila Rivers exceed the maximum allowable limit for mercury. Mercury contamination is commonly associated with mining operations and effluent-dominated waters, such as the Salt River below the 91st Avenue WWTP, located downstream from the study area. When water quality standards are exceeded, it frequently appears to be linked to the remobilization of contaminated sediments during higher-than-normal flows. Although metals appeared in some Salt River Project groundwater wells, concentrations did not exceed the maximum allowable limits. The exact sources and extent of contamination of surface waters by mercury and other metals remains unclear, but it can be assumed that sediments play an important role in their distribution.

Several ions and nutrients also exceed maximum allowable levels in groundwater, surface water and effluent in the study reach. Nitrates are added to the hydrologic system from a variety of sources, including runoff from agricultural fertilizer, animal feed-lot wastes and subsurface domestic septic leachate. Nitrates ranged from 2 to 172 milligrams per liter (mg/1) in SRP- operated wells throughout the valley in 1989 (Jones & Stokes, 2000). Near the Salt River, wells in five out of six reaches exceeded the EPA standard. Historically, nitrate levels have increased as a result of leaching of irrigated soils and sewage seepage.

Wells in all reaches of the river exceeded recommended concentrations of bicarbonate and chloride, 90 mg/1 and 250 mg/1, respectively. Groundwater from an extensive 103 square-mile area of the basin located generally north of Salt River, between Phoenix and Glendale, exceeds EPA’s Maximum Contaminant Level drinking water-quality standard of 45 mg/l for nitrate (USGS and ADEQ, 1997). Boron presents another potential danger to plants and is present at problematic levels in wells in the lower four reaches of the river. Boron is found naturally in Salt River waters, but various sources contribute to elevating levels in groundwater: WWTPs; municipal sewer systems, which in some areas employ heavy use of boric acid to control cockroaches; and leaching from irrigated fields that receive wastewater or sludge.

Total dissolved solids (TDS) probably warrant the least concern among all contaminants. Historically, TDS concentrations in surface waters and groundwater exceed the recommended standards for irrigation waters (500 mg/1), ranging between 500 and 5,000 mg/l. The irrigation that has been conducted over a long period in the valley has produced little long-term change in the chemical quality of the groundwater since 1900. TDS concentrations in both the groundwater and surface water of Salt River increased during the first half of this century, peaking around 1950 at 3,500-4,000 mg/l. More recent data show that TDS concentrations have declined since then, probably as a result of groundwater recharge. Data from the SRP wells suggest that TDS pose the greatest danger to plants in the lower reaches of the river. In 1989, TDS concentrations in SRP wells ranged from 230 to 3,670 mg/l, with a median of 910 mg/1. TDS concentrations are generally lower in the surface waters of the Salt and Verde Rivers and averaged 552 mg/1 and 282 mg/1, respectively, in 1989 above Granite Reef Dam. These concentrations are significantly lower than historical measurements. TDS levels in the Salt River at low flow were 1,850 mg/1 in 1900, 2,490 mg/l in 1912, 2,900 mg/1 in 1930, and 3,500 mg/l in

Rio Salado Oeste 3-14 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement 1943. TDS concentrations on average vary with the amount of flow. For example, during the 1978–80 floods, TDS concentrations in Salt and Verde Rivers ranged between 100 and 900 mg/1 at lower flows and between 200 and 500 mg/1 at higher flows. Although TDS in surface waters and groundwater may cause problems for salt-sensitive crops and other plants, the present concentrations do not significantly differ from more natural conditions along the Salt River.

Urban stormwater runoff also has the potential to generate discharges of contaminants of concern. The USGS, in cooperation with the Flood Control District Maricopa County (FCDMC), have conducted specialized studies of contaminants in urban stormwater runoff in Maricopa County (USGS, 1995a; USGS, 1995b). Based on data collected from 1993 through 1994, stormwater could degrade water quality with oil and grease, pesticides, dissolved trace metals, and ammonia (USGS, 1995a). The highest levels of aquatic toxicity were detected in watersheds that receive drainage from residential and commercial land uses. Streamflow samples from the Salt River were not toxic. Ammonia, lead and zinc loads that were discharged in stormwater were also found to accumulate in channel-bed sediments. Toxicity of bed materials was detected in undeveloped drainage basins and developed basins. Naturally occurring levels of zinc and copper, to a lesser extent, may be responsible for sediment toxicity in undeveloped areas. Recoverable concentrations of zinc and cadmium were most correlated with sediment toxicity from bed material in developed drainage basins. Previous sampling conducted in 1991 and 1992 was evaluated to identify differences in contaminant loading patterns (USGS, 1995b). Data indicated that loading was most directly correlated with the percentage of impervious land area and commercial or industrial land uses. Localized areas in the Cities of Chandler, Mesa, Paradise Valley and Peoria appeared to contribute a large proportion of the total loads evaluated. These areas were typically impervious in excess of 40 percent of the total area and contained high-density commercial, industrial or residential development. A national assessment of stormwater quality from 11 major municipal areas indicated that contaminant-loading stormwater runoff per unit land area was generally better than other areas (USGS, 1994). When compared with other municipalities, contaminant loading in Phoenix, from residential, commercial and industrial drainage basins ranked fourth, second and third lowest, respectively.

3.3.2 POTENTIAL WATER QUALITY STRESSORS

The Water Quality Technical Committee (WQTC), for the first phases of the adjacent Tres Rios Project, identified categories of stressors that could affect the quality of the surface waters and groundwater in the Salt River Valley (Tres Rios River Management Steering Committee–Water Quality Technical Committee, 1998). These stressors are described below.

3.3.2.1 Flood flows

Flood flows are the releases from upstream dams. The flows vary in quantity from minor flows in the channel to the projected 100-year flood flows. The minor flows are the result of controlled releases, while the major floods are caused by uncontrolled releases. Flood flows transport substantial amounts of sediment that originate from tributary flows entering the Salt and Gila Rivers from upstream portions of the river channels and erosion in the study area. Substantial scouring of the Salt River channel occurs during flood flows and is partially related to levee

Rio Salado Oeste 3-15 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement maintenance activities, channelization projects and removal of material for gravel mining operations (USGS, 1995c). Flood flows erode landfills in and adjacent to the river, adding trash and debris to the materials transported by the flow. Much deposition of sediment and landfill materials occurs in the riparian areas in the Tres Rios study area (Jones & Stokes, 2000).

The flood flows can contain pollutants of concern derived from tributary stream inflow, erosion of sediments, and landfills. Large quantities of water in flood flows can dilute the concentration and transport the contaminants through the study area to downstream areas. There is very little information available on the chemical constituents in flood flows.

3.3.2.2 Stormwater Runoff

Stormwater enters the Salt River at numerous locations in the study area and has the potential to degrade the surface quality of water in the system. The quality of water from storm drains varies depending on the length of time between storm events, the amount of flow, and the source of stormwater runoff. Runoff often contains a significant amount of sediment that is washed from undeveloped land and other sources, as well as chemical contaminants or pollutants. The types of chemical pollutants will vary depending on the land uses within the particular drainage area. Potential water quality impacts associated with runoff from industrial sites are projected to be minimal because of the compliance requirements of the Arizona National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program, typically referred to as the AZPDES permits, which require each industrial site to have a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Runoff from turf areas has the potential to contain pesticide and fertilizer residuals. Runoff from paved areas can contain hydrocarbon products, metals, and anything spilled on the pavement. Detailed description of surface water quality within the study area can be found in Appendices B and D of the Feasibility Report.

There are many areas where stormwater is not collected in a drainage system and runoff flows overland or in streets until it flows into the river channels. This type of stormwater runoff is referred to as unregulated because the quality of runoff is not subject to NPDES stormwater permit program requirements. The pollutants of concern in unregulated stormwater runoff could include sediment and a variety of chemical components, depending on land use of the runoff area.

The City of Phoenix, as part of their citywide Stormwater Management Program (SWMP) for the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4), conducts annual monitoring and reporting of selected locations throughout the system. The most recent annual report for the MS4 is for the year ending June 30, 2005. This includes monitoring of storm sewer outfalls located at Elwood Street and the Salt River (SR03), the south bank of the Salt River at 27th Avenue (SR30), at 67th Avenue and the Salt River (SR49), and at an in-stream monitoring location on the Salt River at 51st Avenue. Monitoring data indicate that on the Salt River conventional pollutant concentrations have decreased with time and trace metals and nutrients have remained fairly constant. It can be assumed that with the continuation of the SWMP and best management practices, the stormwater quality would remain fairly consistent if not improve over time.

Rio Salado Oeste 3-16 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement 3.3.2.3 Agricultural Stormwater Runoff and Irrigation Tailwater

Agricultural land uses can be the source of agricultural stormwater runoff. Most of the agricultural stormwater runoff is from fields, but can also originate from equipment yards. In most cases, agricultural runoff from fields and equipment yards is collected in adjacent irrigation drainage canals and discharged to river channels. In some locations where the farm fields are near river channels, the stormwater runoff can flow directly into river channels. Agricultural stormwater runoff from fields can contain large amounts of sediment because plowing and cultivation break up the soil surface and make soils susceptible to erosion. The field stormwater runoff can contain pollutants of concern associated with agriculture, such as nitrates (from fertilizers), pesticides and herbicides. Past irrigation practices often resulted in the application of excess irrigation water, which was drained from fields into drainage canals and released into the rivers. Discharges of excess irrigation water, or tailwater, are not regulated and their quality is not monitored. Water conservation rules restricting irrigation water use have resulted in a substantial reduction in agricultural drainage, but have not eliminated it.

3.3.2.4 Concentrated Animal-Feeding Operations

Concentrated animal-feeding operations (CAFOs) can produce very poor quality discharges if the site drainage is not controlled. Animal wastes can drain from the site into storm drains or irrigation systems, including both water supply laterals and drainage canals. The principal pollutant of concern from such operations is nitrate. Bacterial pathogens, microbiological pollutants, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), total suspended solids and nutrient loads can also be generated at a CAFO site. CAFO sites are not located within the Salt River channel. However, uncontrolled runoff from CAFO operations can enter the Salt River through canals and storm drainage systems. Regulations are in place to require control of CAFO discharges by means of an agricultural general permit from the Arizona Aquifer Protection Permit program (Arizona Administrative Code, Title 18, Chapter 9, Article Z [R18-9-201 to 203]). CAFO discharges are also regulated through NPDES permits under the Clean Water Act. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has a pilot program to provide funding to control CAFO discharges at selected sites.

3.3.2.5 Wastewater Treatment Plant Direct Discharge

All WWTPs that discharge to surface waters are required to have NPDES permits that include requirements to monitor the quality of the effluent prior to discharge. There are several WWTPs with discharge permits for the Salt River, including the 23rd Avenue WWTP operated by the City of Phoenix. Reclaimed water produced by this plant is reused by Roosevelt Irrigation District (RID) for irrigation water. When RID is using the reclaimed water, there is no flow discharged to Salt River. RID diversions are seasonal, following the demand for irrigation water. During winter, the reclaimed water from the WWTP is discharged into Salt River. The discharge percolates into the riverbed, but as the discharge season progresses, the flow extends downstream. When hydrologic conditions permit, the flow from the 23rd Avenue WWTP can continue downstream beyond the study area.

Rio Salado Oeste 3-17 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement 3.3.3 REGULATORY SETTING

This section describes the federal and local agencies that have jurisdiction over water projects on rivers in the study area and that provide for flood protection in the study area. This section also presents information on the federal flood insurance program and pertinent water quality regulations.

3.3.3.1 Agency Jurisdiction

Several governmental agencies have administrative interests in the lower Salt and lower Gila Rivers. Upstream dams were built and/or operated by the USBR, U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), SRP, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). The Corps built and now operates a major flood control structure (Painted Rock Dam) downstream of the study area. The entire study area for this report is located in Maricopa County. The Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC) is the primary entity providing for flood protection. These agencies and their jurisdictions are described below.

3.3.3.1.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)

Since its original legislative mandate in 1927 for flood-related work in the United States, the Corps has acquired significant responsibility for flood damage reduction and related efforts on the lower Salt River. Although the Corps has not built local channel facilities along the lower Salt River, the agency has constructed Painted Rock Dam to protect irrigation works on the lower Gila River from inundation and channel erosion. The dam, begun in 1957 and completed in 1960, can store 2.5 million ac-ft of water, with controlled releases of up to 22,000 cfs. The Corps has several proposed projects related to the lower Salt River. Although it is not known which, if any, of the projects may eventually be completed, they represent an indication of the Corps’ interest in the study area.

3.3.3.1.2 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR)

The USBR has primary responsibility for the development and delivery of water resources. The 1902 Reclamation Act was intended to provide federal investment (with subsequent repayment by users) and expertise in the development of water resources, primarily in the western states. The Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 brought about significant adjustments in USBR’s operating methods, recognized leasing, and changed payment procedures.

3.3.3.1.3 Salt River Project (SRP)

Until the mid-20th century, the SRP was primarily a water storage and delivery agency for agricultural users. After World War II, the Phoenix urban area grew rapidly, and the mission of the SRP changed focus. In 1903, the local community included fewer than 20,000 people. By 1967, the population had grown to 800,000 and in 1994, the population approached two million. To accommodate the shift from an agricultural to an urban emphasis, the SRP adjusted to address urban water delivery issues, and it became a major component of the regional electrical power grid. The SRP operates six major dams and the Granite Reef Diversion Dam upstream of the

Rio Salado Oeste 3-18 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement metropolitan area on the Salt and Verde Rivers. SRP also operates the C.C. Cragin Dam (formerly Blue Ridge Dam) on the Little Colorado River. Water will be pumped from there to provide water to communities on the Salt River watershed. Therefore, SRP must be included in any plans for managing river flows and floods through the urban area. The SRP also owns land parcels in and near the river channel.

3.3.3.1.4 Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC)

FCDMC is a primary agency involved with the management of the lower Salt River and portions of the Gila River. Although Maricopa County had undertaken some flood damage reduction efforts on a relatively small scale before the early 1980s, widespread, coordinated projects became much more common after the Arizona State Legislature mandated the formation of county flood control districts. FCDMC builds various flood control structures, often in cooperation with other agencies, such as Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) and NRCS. In addition, FCDMC manages floodplain development by delineating floodplains and administering regulations for floodplain users. The FCDMC coordinates the participation of the county in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), administered by U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, as established by congressional action in 1968 and revised in 1973. The availability of federally insured loans and other federal assistance related to floodplains depends on adherence to federal and state rules and regulations as administered by FCDMC. In exercising its responsibilities, FCDMC has completed 32 projects and structures within Maricopa County, including vegetation clearing projects, levee construction, bank stabilization and channel improvements.

3.3.3.2 Water Quality Regulations

3.3.3.2.1 Clean Water Act

Placement of dredged or fill materials into waters of the United States is regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and administered by the Corps of Engineers. Under the act, the state must issue or waive Section 401 water quality certification before a project can receive Section 404 authorization. Water quality certification requires the evaluation of water quality considerations associated with dredging or placement of fill materials into waters of the United States. An evaluation of the potential effects of each action alternative on water quality has been included as the 404(b)(1) Compliance Evaluation (Appendix A).

Section 404(r) of the Clean Water Act waives the requirement to obtain either the State water quality certificate or the 404 permit, provided that the discharge is part of a federal construction project authorized by Congress, and if the following conditions are met: (1) information on the effects of such discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including the application of the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, are included in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the proposed project, and; the EIS is submitted to Congress before the actual discharge takes place and prior to either authorization of the proposed project or appropriation of funds for its construction. The Corps has determined that this project as proposed is consistent with the Section 404(b)(1) guidelines (Appendix A) and is in compliance with the Clean Water Act. Upon authorization by Congress, the Corps will recommend an exemption from the

Rio Salado Oeste 3-19 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement requirement to obtain State water quality certification under Section 404(r) of the Clean Water Act.

The Section 404(r) exemption does not extend to the OMRR&R responsibilities of the non- federal sponsor. The sponsor may be required to obtain a Section 404 permit for discharges of dredge and fill material that are not considered part of the five year adaptive management plan. The Regulatory Branch would determine what type of permit (if any) is needed for these activities. The Corps would assist the non-federal sponsor with preparation of any permit application that may be needed.

The EPA requires states to identify and establish beneficial uses and water quality objectives for surface and groundwater resources. ADEQ is the responsible agency and the water quality standards are established in the Arizona Administrative Code, Title 18, Chapter 11. Numerical and narrative water quality objectives are established to protect designated uses. The Salt River, th from the location of the Phoenix 24 Street WWTP extending downstream to the confluence with the Gila River is classified as an effluent-dependent waterbody under Title 18, and ADEQ regulates effluent discharges within this reach on a site-specific basis.

Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires states to identify water resources that are impaired by contaminants and failing to meet ambient surface water quality objectives. The applicable regulations require development of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program for 303(d) listed water bodies. TMDL programs identify sources of the contaminants, available assimilative capacity of the water body that would result in water quality objectives being met, and allocates the allowable daily load to dischargers within the watershed. The TMDL implementation plan is then developed to regulate and control the loading of contaminants in the watershed. The Salt River is listed as being impaired by chlordane, DDT metabolites, pH and toxaphene in the lower reach of the channel extending from near Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport to the confluence with the Gila River (ADEQ, 1998). TMDLs for these constituents are proposed to be developed before 2007.

3.3.3.2.2 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Discharge Permits

Established by Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) is the primary federal program that regulates point-source discharges to waters of the United States. The NPDES program is administered by the EPA Region 9 office in San Francisco, California. In 1992, EPA promulgated rules for a General Construction Storm Water Permit under NPDES which requires property owners to file a notice of intent to discharge stormwater runoff to U.S. waters from land disturbances of more than one acre. The permit generally requires dischargers to eliminate non-stormwater discharges to stormwater systems, develop and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and perform inspections of stormwater pollution prevention measures. EPA transferred NPDES permitting authority to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) on December 30, 2002. ADEQ currently operates the program and issues AZPDES permits for water pollution. Grading that would occur as part of this project would be more than one acre and, therefore, would require a SWPPP.

Rio Salado Oeste 3-20 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement However, on August 22, 2005, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated EPA’s approval of the AZPDES permit program. Defenders of Wildlife, et al. v. EPA, et al., No. 03-71439, 2005 WL 2001100. On September 9, 2005, EPA sent a letter to the ADEQ Water Quality Division stating that unless and until the court’s mandate is issued, Arizona’s authorization to issue NPDES (AZPDES) permits and implement the program remains in effect.

3.3.3.2.3 Safe Drinking Water Act

Water quality standards for drinking water are established and regulated by the federal Safe Drinking Water Act of 1986. Maximum contaminant levels, which apply to metals and other toxic compounds in drinking water, are subject to revision. Additional compounds may be added. The Arizona Safe Drinking Water Program is administered by ADEQ, except for Underground Injection Control permits. These are still issued by EPA Region 9.

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

This section contains a summary of biological resources occurring in, or potentially occurring in, the Rio Salado Oeste study area. Information was derived from published and unpublished reports, Jones & Stokes’ file information, and information obtained incidental to other activities in the study area. For the purpose of this biological resources discussion, the project study area consists of the eight mile long section of the Salt River between 19th Avenue and 83rd Avenue. The study area extends one mile to either side of the center of the river channel, for a total width of two miles. Ten federally- and/or state-listed wildlife species have the potential to occur in the study area and are evaluated in this study.

3.4.1 GENERAL STUDY AREA SETTING

Historically, the study area supported significant biological resources including extensive riparian and marsh habitats and included a rather diverse native fishery which has been extirpated below Granite Reef Dam. Most of these fish species are now federally listed throughout minimal sites in the State of Arizona. Urban development, diversion of water to support agriculture, and domestic livestock grazing have eliminated or altered most of the natural vegetation communities that occupied the project study area leaving only scattered remnants of the original vegetation communities. Modifications of the river system, such as damming and flow diversion, currently allow no natural flow through the project study area except during flood events. Vegetation communities in the project study area have been highly modified from their original state and currently contain a mosaic of degraded natural communities and man- made artificial communities. A classification system was developed for this study based on several sources, including a list of cover types supplied to Jones & Stokes by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jones & Stokes file information, and recent publications (Brown,1982; Szaro, 1989). The classification system categorized habitat types in the project study area by the type of vegetation cover. Table 3.4-1 summarizes the mapped cover types and subtypes in the project study area. This section also includes a description of the important biological communities that occur in the project study area, including characteristics of the vegetation and wildlife in each. The general location of these cover types is shown in Figure 3.4-1.

Rio Salado Oeste 3-21 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement 3.4.2 COVER TYPE DESCRIPTIONS

3.4.2.1 Agricultural Lands

3.4.2.1.1 Vegetation

Agricultural lands are common in the study area, occupying 26% of the total area. Generally, agricultural uses include crops such as cotton, small grains, and assorted vegetables. At the time of the field survey, large areas were being prepared for the year’s crops and were dominated by bare soil.

3.4.2.1.2 Wildlife

Agricultural lands in general have low to moderate wildlife value. The composition and structure of commercially produced agricultural croplands lack the diversity of more productive wildlife habitats. Plants important for wildlife food and shelter are often absent or reduced to rows at the edges of the fields. While these fencerows provide corridors for animals to move from place to place, many are isolated and fragmented, greatly reducing the wildlife value. Small mammals such as mice, voles and rats frequent such fencerows and may forage on agronomic crops such as alfalfa and small grains. The abundance of small mammals using these edge habitats attracts medium sized mammals such as coyote, gray fox and bobcat, as well as avian predators (e.g., red-tailed hawk, northern harrier, American kestrel, barn owl, and great horned owl). Bird species favoring open habitats such as killdeer, mountain plover, greater roadrunner, mourning dove, white-winged dove, horned lark, various ground-feeding granivorous sparrows and finches will forage in agricultural fields.

Rio Salado Oeste 3-22 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement Table 3.4-1. Cover Types Present Within the Rio Salado Oeste Project Study Area

Extent Percentage of Project Major Cover Type Subtype Description in Acres Study Area Agricultural Lands Grains Croplands used for wheat production 273.1 3% Alfalfa Croplands used for hay production 493.7 5% Fallow/Ruderal Field Plowed fields not used for at least a year. 157.9 2% Unclassified Agriculture Plowed and unplanted at the time of the survey. 1,687.9 16% Cottonwood-willow Forest Young cottonwood/willow forest Dominated by native trees, generally less than 10 years old 3.3 <1% with salt cedar in the understory. Mature cottonwood/willow forest Dominated by native trees, generally more than 10 years old 7.2 <1% with salt cedar in the understory. Salt cedar/ cottonwood-willow forest Dominated by salt cedar with scattered native species. 120.7 1% Ditch/Canal None Aqueducts and major ditches 12.4 <1% Low Flow Channel None Low flow channels in the active channel 32.6 <1% Mesquite Woodland None Dominated by mesquite and other small shrubs 10.4 <1% Open Water Small ponds Ponds not associated with gravel operations 3.6 <1% Oxidation ponds Ponds associated with 91st Avenue WWTP 134.3 1% Sand/gravel operation ponds Permanent ponds associated with active sand/gravel operations 240.2 2% Parks and Recreation Areas None Golf courses and parks 133.3 1% River Bottom None Unvegetated river bottom covered mostly with cobbles. 50.0 <1% Scrub-Shrublands None Dominated by burrobush, rabbitbush, quailbush, and saltbush 1,263.1 12% Sand-Gravel Operations None Operations within the active channel 1,179.9 11% Upland Buffer Zone None Newly established shrubs and scrub dominated by a mixture of 489.2 5% native and non-native shrubs Urban None Residential, industrial, or transportation 3,534.7 34% Ruderal None Disturbed areas not associated with agricultural clearing, 639.4 6% mostly weedy herbaceous species.

Rio Salado Oeste 3-23 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement 3.4.2.2 Cottonwood-Willow Forest

3.4.2.2.1 Vegetation

Cottonwood-willow forest is representative of high-quality riparian habitat in Arizona. Riparian habitats are defined as habitats or ecosystems that are associated with adjacent bodies of water (rivers, lakes, or streams) or are dependent on the existence of perennial or ephemeral surface or subsurface water drainage. They are further characterized by having diverse assemblages of plant and animal species in comparison with adjacent upland areas.

Recruitment of most woody riparian vegetation in the southwest has been shown to correlate with high flows followed by a year or more without high flows. The availability of water in the study area is mainly regulated by upstream irrigation diversion dams. Because of the modification of the Salt River system, groundwater elevations have been lowered and have contributed to the decline in cottonwood and willow species. These same conditions have also favored the establishment and dominance of salt cedar. Structural types of most stands of cottonwood/willow within the study area show evidence of disturbed and early successional conditions consistent with past histories of water diversion, infrequent severe floods and land clearing. These plant species are also found in habitats that are narrow, linear strands of vegetation oriented in the main direction of water flow that may occur in riverine flood channels and along the banks of streams. An example of cottonwood/willow habitat can be found near the City of Phoenix 91st Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP).

Only one percent of the total study area acreage consists of cottonwood/willow habitat. In terms of basal area and density, Fremont’s cottonwood, Goodding’s willow and salt cedar are the dominant canopy species in these habitats. The cottonwood/willow riparian habitat is patchy in the study area, and much of the original stands of this habitat have been replaced by the invasive and non-native salt cedar.

For the purpose of this report, riparian habitat was separated into three subtypes; young cottonwood/willow forest, mature cottonwood/willow forest, and salt cedar-cottonwood/willow forest based on differences in species dominance and stand age within each subtype. All subtypes support varying combinations of cottonwoods, willows and salt cedar in the canopy.

The most common riparian habitat in the project study area is salt cedar-cottonwood/willow subtype. The salt cedar-cottonwood/willow subtype in the project study area is dominated by dense stands of salt cedar with scattered cottonwoods or willows in the canopy. Salt cedar has been labeled an “extreme” phreatophyte because of its ability to tap and exploit deep water tables (Duncan et al., 1993). Salt cedar is also highly salt tolerant and has been shown to thrive on groundwater with a high concentration of salt (Duncan et al., 1993). This ability to disperse highly concentrated salt excretions provides salt cedar with a competitive advantage over native plants, such as willows and cottonwoods (Duncan et al., 1993). In contrast to the salt cedar/ cottonwood/willow subtype, the young cottonwood/willow forest subtype is characterized by small native trees and shrubs generally less than ten years old, and the mature cottonwood/willow forest subtype is characterized by larger native trees and shrubs generally

Rio Salado Oeste 3-24 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement more than ten years old. Common understory associates in these types include salt cedar, desert broom, marsh fleabane and desert willow.

3.4.2.2.2 Wildlife

Cottonwood-willow forest, although uncommon in the project study area, stands out as the most important remnant wildlife habitat in the area. Cottonwood-willow supports the densest and most diverse wildlife communities in valleys and deserts. The diversity of plant species and growth forms provides a variety of food sources and microclimate conditions for wildlife. Cottonwoods and willows provide substantial nesting support for large birds, such as the great blue heron, red- tailed hawk, American kestrel, western screech owl, great horned owl and northern flicker.

Although salt cedar has displaced large amounts of riparian and other vegetation along the Salt River, the remaining native riparian habitat still provides high wildlife value, especially for resident and migratory birds. Great blue herons, great egrets, western yellow-billed cuckoos, and black-crowned night-herons also roost in the cottonwood/willow vegetation and forage in nearby habitats.

An active rookery with approximately 25 double-crested cormorants, 30 great blue herons, 25 great egrets, and five snowy egrets was observed at one section of salt cedar-cottonwood/willow habitat in the Rio Salado Oeste study area (Kiewet Materials gravel operations site) during the March 6, 2002 field reconnaissance.

The cottonwood/willow habitats are especially important for resident and migratory songbirds because these and other native riparian habitats have high wildlife value and have substantially declined throughout the western United States. Many bird species use cottonwood/willow habitats in the project study area, including Anna’s hummingbird, ash-throated flycatcher, willow flycatcher, black phoebe, dusky flycatcher, western wood pewee, western kingbird, tree swallow, house wren, Bewick’s wren, verdin, Lucy’s warbler, yellow warbler, yellow-rumped warbler and red-winged blackbird.

The most common mammals in cottonwood/willow habitats in the area are the cactus mouse, deer mouse, and western harvest mouse. White-throated woodrat, cotton rat, coyote, and bobcat are also common in these cottonwood/willow habitats (CH2M HILL et al., 1997).

Some of the common reptiles occurring in the area include the tree lizard, earless lizard, sideblotched lizard, desert spiny lizard, western whiptail, banded gecko, desert blackheaded snake, common kingsnake, banded sand snake, and western diamondback rattlesnake. The tree lizard, which has been characterized as a terrestrial riparian lizard (Omart et al., 1988), is among the most common species observed in the cottonwood/willow and salt cedar trees in the vicinity (CH2M HILL et al., 1997).

Many native wildlife species, especially riparian-dependent or riparian/marsh-dependent birds (e.g., willow flycatchers and the western yellow-billed cuckoo [both discussed in more detail below under “Special-Status Species”], summer tanager, and western yellow-billed cuckoo) require large tracts of native riparian trees and shrubs for cover, nesting and foraging.

Rio Salado Oeste 3-25 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement 3.4.2.3 Ditch/Canal

3.4.2.3.1 Vegetation

Ditches and canals are uncommon in the project study area, occupying less than one percent of the total area. These features are characterized by open, perennially flowing water and typically lack any vegetation.

3.4.2.3.2 Wildlife

Ditches and canals, as they occur in the project study area, offer moderate to low wildlife value. These features are only rarely lined with any vegetation that serves as movement corridors or cover for wildlife. The larger concrete-lined aqueducts serve as marginal foraging and loafing areas for several species of waterfowl including mallard, common merganser, and American coot. Belted kingfishers and black phoebes were observed foraging in the vicinity of the larger aqueducts during the site reconnaissance.

3.4.2.4 Low Flow Channels

3.4.2.4.1 Vegetation

Low flow channels in the Salt River have been almost entirely eliminated, occurring in less than one percent of the project study area downstream of the 23rd Avenue WWTP. These features are characterized by either seasonal or perennial open water and are generally unvegetated. Vegetation, when present, consists of scattered patches of Bermuda grass, salt heliotrope and sedges.

3.4.2.4.2 Wildlife

Due to extensive disturbance from sand and gravel mining, and the lack of perennial flow, low flow channels are uncommon in the study area. The low flow channel that does exist within the Salt River is supported primarily by effluent discharged from the 23rd Avenue WWTP. Depending on the water needs of the Roosevelt Irrigation District, the volume of effluent varies from nothing to nearly 50 mgd on a generally annual cycle. The wide fluctuations in water availability and lack of cover (vegetation) limits the suitability of the low flow channel for wildlife. Despite these limitations, the low flow channel provides feeding opportunities for wading birds and some mammals, and can serve as suitable habitats for amphibian larvae (tadpoles) during dry conditions.

3.4.2.5 Mesquite Woodlands

3.4.2.5.1 Vegetation

Mesquite woodlands historically occurred over large areas within the river floodplain and on higher terraces of the river. These communities have been nearly eliminated from the river ecosystem by changes to natural processes and occur in less than one percent of the study area.

Rio Salado Oeste 3-26 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement Currently, only small fragmented stands of scattered mesquite woodlands remain along the Salt River. Within the study area, one stand of mesquite woodland was located at the west end of the project near the 91st Avenue WWTP on the south side of the river. This stand had a high level of disturbance including cutting/clearing and vehicular traffic, and appeared to be in poor condition. The mesquite woodland appeared to be dominated by mature trees and did not have evidence of mesquite reproduction, probably due to the factors described above.

3.4.2.5.2 Wildlife

Mesquite is common throughout the region, but has been reduced to remnant patches within the study area. Although no wildlife species are completely dependent on this habitat type, mesquite provides cover, foraging, and breeding habitat for many wildlife species. Most wildlife species that use mesquite habitats also use other similar habitats, including quailbush and salt cedar. This wildlife habitat type is used by many bird species, including mourning dove, white-winged dove, Lucy’s warbler, Bell’s vireo, Abert’s towhee, elf owl, Gila woodpecker, verdin, European starling, and house finch. Mammals that use this habitat include coyotes, gray fox, bobcats, pocket gophers, black-tailed jackrabbit, desert cottontails, and cactus mice. Reptiles that often use mesquite habitat include earless lizards, side-blotched lizards, desert spiny lizards, western whiptails, gopher snakes, common kingsnakes, banded sand snakes, and western diamondback rattlesnakes.

3.4.2.6 Open Water

3.4.2.6.1 Vegetation

Open water habitat is uncommon in the project study area, occupying three percent of the total area. For the purpose of this report, the open water cover type was separated into three subtypes: sand/gravel operation ponds, small ponds not associated with sand/gravel operations, and oxidation ponds associated with the 91st Avenue WWTP. These open water subtypes may contain some narrow bands of vegetation around the edges, but are generally unvegetated.

3.4.2.6.2 Wildlife

Open water habitat along the Salt River has high wildlife value. The open water habitat supports large numbers of water birds that feed or breed in the area. Mallard and cinnamon teal are known to nest near open water habitats of Maricopa County (Witzeman et al., 1997), and may nest within the project study area. Amphibians, turtles and garter snakes are likely to be common in some of the open water habitats.

3.4.2.6.3 Fish

Few quantitative and comprehensive inventories of fish species have been undertaken on the Salt River system (CH2M HILL et al., 1997). Fifteen native fish species and 29 introduced fish species have been recorded in Salt River and Phoenix Canal systems (Marsh and Minckly, 1982). Fish habitat in the region has been altered because of elevated nutrient levels in the WWTP effluent discharge. This has resulted in abundant growths of algae and emergent and submergent

Rio Salado Oeste 3-27 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement aquatic vegetation. Dissolved oxygen levels in the water column vary widely. If native fish species are still present in the Salt River system, their occurrence would likely be limited by low dissolved oxygen levels (CH2M HILL et al., 1997).

3.4.2.7 Parks and Recreation Areas

3.4.2.7.1 Vegetation

Parks and recreation areas occupy one percent of the study area and include turf-covered lands used for activities such as golf and other recreation activities. These areas generally contain nonnative ornamental trees and shrubs.

3.4.2.7.2 Wildlife

Parks and recreation areas, as they occur in the study area, offer moderate wildlife value. Parks and golf courses planted with non-native ornamental trees and shrubs provide some foraging and roosting habitat for resident and migrating birds, and smaller man-made ponds may support waterfowl. Wildlife species occurring in parks and recreation areas are expected to be similar to those found in urban areas and in close association with human activity. The rock dove, European starling, house finch, and house sparrows are among those species known to be common in parks and recreational areas.

3.4.2.8 River Bottom

3.4.2.8.1 Vegetation

The river bottom cover type was located in less than one percent of the total project study area. This cover type is largely unvegetated, and is characterized by cobble in the active channel of Salt River.

3.4.2.8.2 Wildlife

River bottom habitat provides low wildlife value because the vegetation is sparse or grows in clumps, but the habitat is used by many wildlife species for foraging or sunning. Many species of snakes and lizards use cobble habitats for sunning during the morning and evening. Cobble habitats often trap small fish and amphibian tadpoles as the river flows recede during spring or summer. These small fish and tadpoles are prey for water birds (e.g., herons, egrets, and gulls), raccoons, skunks and aquatic snakes.

Quailbush is found in the river bottom habitat. It is used by many birds, mammals and reptiles, for feeding and cover. Many of the wildlife species that use river bottom habitat are also found in association with habitats of sand/gravel operations.

Rio Salado Oeste 3-28 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement 3.4.2.9 Scrub-Shrublands

3.4.2.9.1 Vegetation

Scrub-shrublands are common and are present within the active channel of the river occupying 12 percent of the project study area. They are dominated by various combinations of burrobush, rabbitbush, quailbush, saltbush, and occasionally by creosote bush. Many of these areas have been highly disturbed from OHV traffic and gravel mining activities, and contain little or no vegetation cover. If the total vegetation cover was less than ten percent, the area was mapped as unvegetated river bottom. If water was present, it was mapped as low flow channel.

3.4.2.9.2 Wildlife

Scrub-shrublands, as they occur in the study area, offer moderate wildlife value. The shrub and scrubland vegetation provides foraging and resting cover for small and medium-sized mammals, snakes and lizards, and various terrestrial birds including Gambel’s quail, greater roadrunner, loggerhead shrike, curve-billed thrasher and verdin.

3.4.2.10 Sand/Gravel Operations

3.4.2.10.1 Vegetation

Sand/gravel operations are common in the project study area, occupying 11 percent of the total area. Next to water diversion, these operations appear to be a large factor contributing to habitat alteration within the historic river channel. Because operations are characterized by a large amount of disturbance in the active channel, vegetation is mostly lacking. However, mostly weedy non-native species that tend to colonize quickly after disturbance may be present.

3.4.2.10.2 Wildlife

Sand/gravel operations provide low wildlife value because the areas tend to be characterized by high human activity and disturbance from the operation of heavy equipment. Because the vegetation is sparse, there is little foraging or resting cover for wildlife species. Many of the wildlife species that use sand/gravel operations are also found in association with river bottom habitat.

3.4.2.11 Upland Buffer Zone

3.4.2.11.1 Vegetation

The upland buffer zone is uncommon in the study area, occupying only five percent of the area. It is characterized by a mixture of non-native and native species on the upper terraces and floodplain of the river. The presence of the upland buffer zone is highly variable, depending on the level of disturbance from urban, industrial and agricultural uses. Typical species associated with this zone include mesquite, rabbitbush, acacia, paloverde, creosote, salt cedar and tree tobacco.

Rio Salado Oeste 3-29 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.4.2.11.2 Wildlife

Although the upland buffer zone area supports good plant diversity and structure, it offers only low to moderate wildlife value due to its small area and its proximity to disturbed habitats.

3.4.2.12 Urban Areas

3.4.2.12.1 Vegetation

Urban areas are the most common land use in the project study area, occupying 34 percent of the total area. Major land uses in this type include residential, commercial and industrial developments. Vegetation in urban areas is generally dominated by non-native ornamental plants and small patches of turf.

3.4.2.12.2 Wildlife

Urban areas make up one-third of the available wildlife habitat within the project study area. This habitat has low wildlife value because it provides minimal cover and food sources. Wildlife species often using urban areas include northern mockingbird and mourning dove, in addition to those species known to be common in parks and recreational areas. Urban areas tend to support wildlife species with high tolerances to human activity and disturbance. Medium-sized mammals adapted to take advantage of urban areas include opossum, raccoon, striped skunk and coyote.

3.4.2.13 Ruderal Areas

3.4.2.13.1 Vegetation

Ruderal areas are common in the project study area, occupying six percent of the total area. These areas are characterized by a highly disturbed surface with little or no vegetation cover. Characteristic species found in this habitat include introduced annual plant species, including London rocket and filaree, and scattered native and non-native shrubs including Russian thistle, saltbush, creosote, and burrobush.

3.4.2.13.2 Wildlife

Ruderal areas have low wildlife value because they provide minimal cover for foraging and resting. Because of the open nature of ruderal areas, raptors such as white-tailed kite, red-tailed hawk, and American kestrel are commonly found hunting in these habitats.

One raptor species able to utilize the flatter ruderal habitats is the western burrowing owl. Until the early eighties, the western burrowing owl was common along the north bank of the Salt River. However housing and industrial development, and high OHV use in former western burrowing owl habitat, have made it increasingly uncommon in Maricopa County (Witzeman et al., 1997). No burrowing owls are known to be present within the project implementation area.

Rio Salado Oeste 3-30 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.4.3 SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES

Species included on federal or state (or, in some cases, county or local) listings for the purpose of regulatory consideration are collectively referred to as special status species. For the Rio Salado Oeste feasibility study, special-status species are those animals in the following categories:

• Animals listed or proposed for listing as Threatened or Endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) (50 CFR 17.11 [listed animals] and various notices in the Federal Register [proposed species]); • Animals that are candidates for possible future listing as Threatened or Endangered under the federal ESA (66 FR 54808, October 30, 2001), and; • Wildlife of Special Concern (WSC) to the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD, 1996)

The US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) defines an Endangered Species as an animal or plant species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A Threatened Species is an animal or plant species likely to become Endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Finally, a Candidate Species is a plant or animal species for which the USFWS, or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - Fisheries (NOAA Fisheries, or National Marine Fisheries Service), has on file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to support a proposal to list as Endangered or Threatened. When the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) formally classifies a species as Wildlife of Special Concern (WSC), known threats and documented population declines are the most important factors considered. Potential threats and perceived declines also receive consideration (AGFD, 1996).

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has coordinated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA). As part of this coordination, the FWS provided a Planning Aid Letter on June 21, 2002, and a Coordination Act Report on June 20, 2005. These documents provide recommendations for alternative formulation and future OMRR&R activities, and state that the FWS is unaware of any federally listed Threatened or Endangered species within the project area.

The Corps received a Section 7 concurrence letter stating the US FWS concurs with the findings that this project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect any of the species of concern. The purpose of the Section 7 consultation is to ensure that proposed actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species, or result in destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. No critical habitat has been designated in the study area. In addition, no special-status plants (other than protected native plants) or fish have been recorded in or are expected to occur in the study area. Protocol surveys for federally Threatened and Endangered species, as well as WSC, would be conducted prior to project construction if they are warranted. The scientific and common names of plants and wildlife discussed in this section are listed in Appendix B.

Rio Salado Oeste 3-31 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement There are ten special-status species with the potential to occur in the study area: the lowland leopard frog, desert tortoise, Mexican garter snake, bald eagle, Yuma clapper rail, southwestern willow flycatcher, western yellow-billed cuckoo, cactus ferruginous pygmy owl, American peregrine falcon, and the lesser long-nosed bat. All ten of these special status species are considered to be WSC by AGFD. The bald eagle, Yuma clapper rail, southwestern willow flycatcher, cactus ferruginous pygmy owl, and lesser long-nosed bat are also federally listed. The federal and state status for each of these species is summarized on Table 3.4-2.

Aside from an occasional visit by a migrating or foraging bald eagle, no special-status species have been recorded in the study area (CH2M HILL et al., 1997). The following discussions and Table 3.4-2 summarize the habitat requirements and distribution of the ten special-status wildlife species that could potentially occur in the study area.

3.4.3.1 Lowland Leopard Frog

The lowland leopard frog has no federal listing, but is included on the draft review list of WSC in Arizona (AGFD, 1996). This amphibian occurs below 5,500 feet in elevation, south and west of the Mogollon Rim (AGFD, 1996). This species is restricted to permanent streams, and it generally avoids ponds or other aquatic habitats. It usually occurs in streams with willows and cottonwoods or emergent vegetation (bulrushes and cattails) (Stebbins, 1954). The central Arizona population appears to be healthy, but the lowland leopard frog has disappeared from the lower Gila River and lower Colorado River system. This species has probably declined for a variety of reasons, including predation and competition from non-native fish and amphibians, and from stream alteration and flow diversion (AGFD, 1988; AGFD, 1996).

3.4.3.2 Desert Tortoise

The Sonoran Desert population of the desert tortoise has no federal listing, but is included on the draft review list of WSC in Arizona (AGFD, 1996). This tortoise inhabits much of southwestern and south central Arizona's Sonoran Desert, principally in rocky foothills and less often on lower bajadas and in semidesert grassland. Sonoran Desert populations in the Tucson and Phoenix areas have declined because of urban and agricultural development, road construction, wildfires, illegal collection, and use of off-road vehicles in unauthorized areas (AGFD, 1996).

3.4.3.3 Mexican Garter Snake

On January 4, 2006, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced that a petition to list the Mexican garter snake as Threatened or Endangered under the Endangered Species Act may be warranted (FR Vol. 71, No. 2: pp 315 – 324). As a result, the agency is initiating a status review to determine if the Mexican garter snake should be proposed for listing. This review includes a 60-day public comment period to allow all interested parties the opportunity to provide information on the status of this species throughout its range. The Mexican garter snake is already included on the draft review list of WSC in Arizona (AGFD, 1996). This species occurs in permanent marshes in south-central and southeastern Arizona. It is strongly aquatic and feeds on aquatic animals, including fish and amphibians. This garter snake has declined because of the

Rio Salado Oeste 3-32 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement loss of wetland habitats and competition and predation from non-native fish and bullfrogs (AGFD, 1996).

3.4.3.4 Bald Eagle

The bald eagle was federally listed as Endangered on March 11, 1967, and then reclassified to threatened on July 12, 1995 (60 FR 35999). No critical habitat has been established. The bald eagle has been proposed but not finalized for delisting on July 06, 1999 (50 CFR Section 17). This species is also on the draft review list of wildlife of special concern (WSC) in Arizona (AGFD, 1996). Bald eagles are currently found in all Arizona counties. Bald eagles nest in large trees near lakes and streams, and hunt for waterfowl and fish in wetlands and along rivers and lakes. In Arizona, a small resident population of approximately 40 pairs nests along the Salt, Verde, Gila, Bill Williams, Agua Fria, San Pedro, and San Francisco Rivers, and Tonto and Canyon Creeks. There are at least 200 to 300 individuals that winter throughout the state each year.

Bald eagles have been reported nesting along Salt River east of Phoenix since the 1930s (Witzeman et al., 1997). Bald eagles do not nest in the study area as here is a general lack of suitable nesting trees. However, they occur in the area as winter visitors and migrants (Benham- Blair Associates, 1980). Bald eagles have been observed foraging along the rivers in the study area (CH2M HILL et al., 1997). The open water marsh in the study area may be suitable foraging habitat for bald eagles. Restoration of cottonwood/willow gallery forest may eventually provide suitable nesting habitat for bald eagle.

3.4.3.5 Yuma Clapper Rail

The Yuma clapper rail was federally listed as Endangered on March 11, 1967 (32 FR 4001) without critical habitat designation. The Yuma clapper rail is also on the draft review list of WSC in Arizona (AGFD, 1996). This inland clapper rail requires a wet substrate, such as a mudflat, sandbar, or slough bottom that supports cattail and bulrush stands of moderate to high density adjacent to shorelines (USFWS, 2002). It occurs in cattail, sedge, and bulrush marshes along the Colorado River, the lower Gila and Salt Rivers below the Verde/Salt River confluence, and Pichacho Reservoir (AGFD, 1996; Edelman and Conway, 1998). This species has declined because of the loss and fragmentation of river marshes. Toxic levels of heavy metals, such as selenium, could also have contributed to the species’ decline (AGFD, 1996). The Yuma clapper rail is known to occur as a rare and local summer resident in cattail marshes in the Salt River south and west of Phoenix (Witzeman et al., 1997). However, the habitat within the study area is ephemeral, scarce and insufficient habitat for this species to occur. If suitable habitat develops in the project area prior to construction, protocol surveys will be conducted and consultation reinitiated, if necessary. Restoration of the river channel and associated wetlands (190 acres) throughout the project area should provide suitable habitat for the Yuma clapper rail in the future.

Rio Salado Oeste 3-33 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement 3.4.3.6 Southwestern Willow Flycatcher

The southwestern willow flycatcher was federally listed as Endangered on February 27, 1995 (60 FR 10693). Critical habitat designations were made on July 22, 1997 (62 FR 39129), August 20, 1997 (62 FR 44228), and October 19, 2005 (50 CFR 60886). A recovery plan was completed on August 30, 2002. This Neotropical migrant is also on the draft review list of WSC in Arizona (AGFD, 1996). The breeding range for this species includes southern California, Arizona, New Mexico, southern Utah, southern Nevada, far western Texas, perhaps southwestern Colorado, and extreme northwestern Mexico (USFWS, 1995). Wintering grounds are in Central and South America. The willow flycatcher prefers nesting in dense willow riparian habitats, and is also found in areas of salt cedar in the Sonoran Life Zone (e.g., the lower Big Sandy River, lower Santa Maria River, Bill Williams Delta, upper Gila River, Grand Canyon, and middle Salt River). Historically, the willow flycatcher nested along Salt, Gila, and Agua Fria Rivers (CH2M HILL et al., 1997). Recent statewide surveys indicate that most sites are occupied by fewer than five nesting pairs, which has raised concern over their population status in Arizona. This species has declined for a variety of reasons, including habitat loss and fragmentation resulting from flood damage reduction projects, development, and intensive grazing. Brown-headed cowbird nest parasitism may also have contributed to the species’ decline (AGFD, 1996). This species is currently considered an uncommon transient in Maricopa County, with only a few historic summer records (Witzeman et al., 1997). While the study area has approximately 130 acres classified as cottonwood/willow and salt cedar habitat. While up to 110 acres may be modified with project construction, much of that has all ready been scoured by flooding in 2005 or cleared by private activities in recent months. Remaining stands of vegetation are largely immature and not tall or dense enough to be suitable habitat for willow flycatcher. However, should habitat become suitable prior to construction, protocol surveys will be conducted and consultation reinitiated if necessary. The proposed project will increase the cottonwood/willow habitat by approximately 375 acres, potentially resulting in the establishment of suitable habitat.

3.4.3.7 Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo

The western yellow-billed cuckoo is federally listed as a Candidate species for addition to the list of Threatenend and Endangered species (66 FR 38611, July 25, 2001). This bird is also included on the draft review list of WSC in Arizona (AGFD, 1996). In Arizona, the western yellow-billed cuckoo is found locally in streamside cottonwood and willow groves, and prefers to nest in willow or mesquite thickets (AGFD, 2001b). This species has declined due to degradation and loss of mature riparian habitat within its range. The western yellow-billed cuckoo is considered an uncommon local summer resident (Witzeman et al., 1997).

3.4.3.8 Cactus Ferruginous Pygmy Owl

The cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl was federally listed as Endangered on March 10, 1997 (62 FR 10730), and critical habitat was designated on July 12, 1999 (64 FR 37419) and November 27, 2002 (67 FR 7102). This owl is also on the draft review list of WSC in Arizona (AGFD, 1996). Historically, the cactus ferruginous pygmy owl occurred as far north as the confluence of Salt and Verde Rivers. This species occurs in desert scrub, mesquite bosques, and Sonoran riparian deciduous woodland areas with mature cottonwoods and willows. This small owl nests

Rio Salado Oeste 3-34 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement in cavities created by woodpeckers. The species has declined because of urban development, reduction of suitable habitat, and competition from other cavity-nesting birds (AGFD, 1996; AGFD, 2001a). Areas of recent occupancy include xeric riparian washes in Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, riparian forests of the lower San Pedro River, and saguaro forests near Tucson (AGFD, 1996).

3.4.3.9 American Peregrine Falcon

The American peregrine falcon was federally listed as Endangered or Threatened before being removed from the endangered species list (delisted) on August 25, 1999 (64 FR 46541). This falcon remains on the draft review list of WSC in Arizona (AGFD, 1996). The peregrine falcon occurs in small numbers, and is found nesting on cliffs throughout the state. It is found sparsely in migration, and occasionally winters along the Colorado River. The Arizona population of peregrine falcons declined in the 1950s and 1960s and the rest of the U.S. due to DDT contamination. Additionally, increased development forced the peregrine falcon to nest in sub- optimal habitat (AGFD, 1998b). Since the late 1970s, the peregrine falcon has been increasing in the Phoenix area, and is known to nest on cliffs along the Salt River east of the study area (Phillips et al., 1964; Witzeman et al., 1997).

3.4.3.10 Lesser Long-Nosed Bat

The lesser long-nosed bat was federally listed as Endangered on September 30, 1988 (53 FR 38456). This bat is a summer resident of central and southeastern Arizona. It roosts colonially in large numbers, occupying mines and caves at the bases of mountains. The lesser long-nosed bat is found in habitats that support agaves, yuccas, saguaros, and organ pipe cacti (Harvey et al., 1999), and feeds mainly on agave and saguaro flower nectar and pollen. The lesser long-nosed bat population has declined because of human disturbance at breeding and roosting sites and habitat loss; however, the population appears stable (AGFD, 1996). There are records for this species from the Phoenix area, so it could potentially occur in the study area.

Rio Salado Oeste 3-35 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement Table 3.4-2. Special Status Species that may occur in the Rio Salado Oeste project area.

Status* Potential for Occurrence Species Arizona Distribution Habitat Requirements Reasons for Decline Federal/State in the Study Area Lowland leopard --/WSC Occurs below 5,500 Permanent streams, Predation and The study area is in the lowland frog feet in elevation, south generally avoids ponds; competition from non- species’ geographic range. (Rana and west of Mogollon prefers streams with native fish and Areas along the Salt and Rivers yavapaiensis) Rim. willows and cottonwoods or amphibians and from appears to be suitable habitat; no emergent vegetation. stream alteration and flow recent records. diversion . Desert tortoise --/WSC Occurs across much of Desert areas with sandy Loss of habitat from Not likely to occur in the study (Gopherus Arizona’s Sonoran loam to gravelly soils for urban development, area due to marginal habitat and [=Xerobates] Desert, including the digging dens; favors cactus habitat alteration and presence of factors that have agassizii) Phoenix area. scrub habitats with high direct mortality from off- caused its decline. densities of annual blooms road vehicle use, cattle in spring for feeding. grazing, and predators, respiratory disease. Mexican garter --/WSC Occurs in permanent Strongly aquatic, and feeds Loss of wetland habitats Suitable wetland habitat is snake marshes in south- on aquatic animals, and because of present along the Salt River; not (Thamnophis central and including fish and competition and likely to occur in the study area eques megalops) southeastern Arizona. amphibians. predation from non- due to presence of factors that native fish and bullfrogs. have caused its decline. Bald eagle T/WSC Nesting occurs along Occurs along large rivers Human disturbance at Not known to nest in the study (Haliaeetus the Verde and Salt and lakes for nesting and nesting and wintering area although individuals occur leucocephalus) Rivers; also nests along wintering; requires large sites; loss of suitable in the area as winter visitors and the Agua Fria and Gila trees, cliffs, or pinnacles for nesting sites, and migrants; observed foraging Rivers; wintering nesting. pesticides. along the rivers in the project occurs along rivers and area. Open water, marshes, lakes where suitable constructed wetlands, and fields habitat occurs. in the study area are suitable foraging habitats.

Rio Salado Oeste 3-36 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement Status* Potential for Occurrence Species Arizona Distribution Habitat Requirements Reasons for Decline Federal/State in the Study Area Yuma clapper rail E/WSC Occurs in cattail and Marsh and riparian habitats. Loss and fragmentation The Salt River supports suitable (Rallus bulrush marshes along of river marshes; toxic habitat; known to occur in areas longirostris the Colorado River; the levels of heavy metals of suitable habitat along the Gila yumanensis) lower Gila and Salt such as selenium, could River. Rivers below the also have contributed to Verde/Salt River the species’ decline. confluence; and Picacho Reservoir. Southwestern E/WSC Nests in dense willow Riparian forest and scrub Has declined for variety Habitat quality along the Salt willow flycatcher riparian habitats along habitats. of reasons, including River is considered marginal, (Empidonax trailii the lower Big Sandy habitat loss and because the cottonwood/willow extimus) River, lower Santa fragmentation from flood habitat is narrow and Maria River, Bill damage reduction fragmented, although still Williams Delta, upper projects, development, considered suitable for the Gila River, Grand and intensive grazing; species; no nesting southwestern Canyon, and middle brown-headed cowbird willow flycatchers have been Salt River; historically nest parasitism could also observed, although migrating nested along the Salt, have contributed to the birds have been observed. Gila, and Agua Fria species’ decline. Rivers. Western yellow- C/WSC Summer resident only Nests in mature Degradation and loss of Salt and Gila Rivers support billed cuckoo in central and southern cottonwood/willow riparian mature riparian habitat. suitable habitat; known to occur (Coccyzus Arizona. forests; salt cedar can be a in areas of suitable habitat along americanus component of their habitat. the Gila River. occidentalis) Cactus E/WSC Historically occurred as Occurs in desert scrub and Loss of habitat from Once fairly common in south ferruginous far north as the riparian areas with mature urban development; central Arizona; only recent pygmy owl confluence of the Salt cottonwood and willows; competition from other records are from Organ Pipe (Glaucidium and Verde Rivers. nests in cavities created by cavity-nesting birds. Cactus National Monument, brasilianum woodpeckers. near Ajo, and suburban Tucson. cactorum) Not likely to occur in the study area due to disturbance and lack of suitable habitat.

Rio Salado Oeste 3-37 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement Status* Potential for Occurrence Species Arizona Distribution Habitat Requirements Reasons for Decline Federal/State in the Study Area American --/WSC Nearly global Optimum habitat consists of Declined in the 1950s and Low potential to occur in study Peregrine Falcon distribution; Breeds in cliffs overlooking habitats 1960s and the rest of the area except while migrating. (Falco Arizona where with abundant bird life, U.S. due to DDT Tall buildings are occasionally peregrinus sufficient prey is such as woodlands and contamination. Increased used as nesting sites. If this available near cliffs, riparian areas. Suboptimal development forced the were to occur in downtown anatum) such as the Mogollon habitat consists of smaller peregrine falcon to nest in Phoenix, it could increase the Rim and the Grand cliffs in ponderosa pine sub-optimal habitat. potential for this species to Canyon. forest, or large cliffs in utilize the study area. xeric areas. Lesser long-nosed E/WSC Summer resident of Roosts colonially in large Has declined because of Habitat quality appears to be bat central and numbers; feeds on agave human disturbance at low in the study area; no (Leptonycteris southeastern Arizona; a and saguaro flower nectar breeding and roosting systematic surveys have been curasoae few late-summer and pollen. Unable to sites and habitat loss; the conducted in the study area; this yerbabuenae) records of immature withstand cold weather; population appears stable. species was recorded upstream individuals from the migrates to Mexico each of the Salt River/Gila River Phoenix area. fall. confluence, north of the Salt River. * Status explanations: Federal E = listed as Endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act. T = listed as Threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act. C = listed as a Candidate species under the federal Endangered Species Act. -- = no listing. State WSC = Wildlife of Special Concern in Arizona (Arizona Game & Fish Department, or AGFD)

Rio Salado Oeste 3-38 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement 3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES

3.5.1 REGULATORY SETTING

3.5.1.1 National Historic Preservation Act

For federal undertakings, in compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA - Public Law 89-665; 16 U.S.C. 470-470m, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 460b, 470l-470n), cultural resources are located using two principal methods. Before starting a project, a records and literature search is conducted at repositories of archeological site records. The search may show that an archaeological or historical survey has been conducted in the project area and that cultural resources have been identified. That information may be enough to proceed with the significance evaluation stage of the project. If no previous survey has been done, or if a previous survey was either out of date or inadequate, a pedestrian survey of the ground surface within the proposed project boundaries may be conducted. Subsurface testing may also be performed if deemed appropriate by the cultural resources professional.

After a cultural resource(s) has been identified during a survey or record and literature search, the federal agency overseeing the undertaking proceeds to determine whether the cultural resource is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register). Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act mandates this process. The federal regulation that guides the process is located at 36 CFR 800.2(c)-(d). For a cultural resource to be determined eligible for listing in the National Register, it has to meet certain criteria. The resource has to be either minimally 50 years old or exhibit exceptional importance. After meeting the age requirement, cultural resources are evaluated according to four criteria. The National Register criteria for evaluation as defined in 36 CFR 60.4 are:

The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and:

(a) that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or

(b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or

(c) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or

(d) that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Rio Salado Oeste 3-39 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement After a cultural resource has been determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register, it is accorded the same level of protection as a property that is included. It then becomes formally known as a “historic property” regardless of age.

3.5.1.2 American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978

Public Law 95-341; 42 U.S.C. 1966., the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, may also apply to the project. This law makes it policy of the federal government to protect and preserve the inherent rights of American Indians, Eskimos, Aleuts, and Native Hawaiians to believe, express and exercise their traditional religions. This includes, but is not limited to access to religious sites, use and possession of sacred objects, and freedom to worship through ceremonials and traditional rites. It directs federal agencies to evaluate their policies and procedures to determine if changes are needed to ensure that such rights and freedoms are not disrupted by agency practices. The act also requires that the views of Native American leaders are to be obtained and considered where a proposed land use might conflict with traditional Indian religious beliefs or practices.

3.5.1.3 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990

Public Law 101-601, 25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq. , the Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act, addresses the recovery, treatment and repatriation of Native American and Native Hawaiian remains, including human remains, associated funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony.

3.5.2 PREHISTORY

3.5.2.1 Paleo-Indian and Archaic

Thus far, there are no known Paleo-Indian sites in the Phoenix Basin or surrounding environs. Little is known of the archaic occupation of the area, but newly acquired excavation data is becoming available. The current construction boom in Scottsdale has required new surveys, which in turn has prompted excavation of previously unknown archaic sites. Presently, much of that information is locked up in unpublished, possibly proprietary reports.

Ongoing archeological and geomorphic surveys on the Gila River Indian Reservation have uncovered discrete Archaic features and occasional diagnostic Archaic projectile points. Site AZ T:11:94(ASM) in the Tres Rios project area may have Archaic components (Onken, 2005). Sufficient knowledge to quantify or characterize the archaic sequence is still quite scarce (Mike Waters and Robert Neily, pers. comm.., 1999). Additional Archaic sites will assuredly be discovered, but in the meantime, they are buried beneath a thick mantle of Gila River alluvium.

3.5.2.2 Hohokam

The principal prehistoric cultural manifestation in the project area is the Hohokam culture. Hohokam is a Pima word that means “those who have gone” (Gladwin and Gladwin, 1933), or more poetically, “those who have vanished” (Wormington, 1973). The name Hohokam has

Rio Salado Oeste 3-40 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement endured and is still the preferred name in spite of some other prehistoric cultures being renamed. The four southern O’odham tribes crafted a policy statement that stated, “We recognized Indian Tribes have mutually agreed to promote and protect the archaeological artifacts and remains of our ancestors, the Hohokam…” (SRPMIC, 1989). The earliest investigations into the Hohokam probably began with Frank Hamilton Cushing’s work at Los Muertos in 1887 and 1888, in what was to become the City of Tempe (Gumerman, 1991). The bulk of the effort expended toward defining the Hohokam came from the work of Harold and Winifred Gladwin, and Emil W. Haury of the Gila Pueblo Archaeological Foundation in Globe.

After accumulating five years of knowledge from excavating at Casa Grande, combined with their detailed stratigraphic analyses, the Gladwins formulated the basis for a ceramic sequence and sketchy ideas for a Hohokam culture history. The concept of the Hohokam as a unique southwestern culture was first proposed in the Gladwins’ (1933) paper on ceramics. The archeological community finally accepted the Hohokam culture concept after publication of Excavations at Snaketown: Material Culture (Gladwin et al., 1937). Until then, Frank H. H. Roberts (1935) considered the idea of the Hohokam as a separate culture to be a “bunch of hokum.”

Throughout the 1940s, Harold Gladwin continued to tinker with the 1937 chronology that had been developed at Snaketown (Doyel, 1986: 202-204; Gumerman and Haury, 1979). Among other issues, Gladwin developed irreconcilable differences with the temporal/cultural placement of the Pioneer Period. Gladwin (1942) was critical of the phase sequence at Snaketown and published a rebuttal of sorts. He posited that Haury’s work on chronology was incorrect and he continued to revise the chronology until it was virtually unintelligible (Doyel, 1986).

To clarify the problems surrounding Hohokam origins, Haury decided that a return to Snaketown was in order. In the winter of 1964-1965, Haury revisited Snaketown to verify the accuracy of his original chronology. In addition to fine tuning the chronology, Haury also surmised that the Hohokam were not derived from the Cochise base. Instead, he ended up agreeing with Gladwin, DiPeso, and Schroeder that the Hohokam were migrants from Mexico. However, he stuck to his argument that the Pioneer Period began at about 300 B.C (Doyel, 1986). Later research concluded that the Pioneer period was rooted in the Archaic Period.

As with all chronological systems, there always seems to be dissention. This is usually because various researchers have data suggesting a localized variant on a chronological scheme, or they are advancing their own ideas. Others, however, are content to use Haury’s system (Holly Young, pers. comm., 1999). Hohokam research in the 1980s took a different look at the origin, and the temporal placement of the phases within the Pioneer period.

After considerable deliberation, Dean developed a chronology for the Phoenix Basin that has become the basis for the prevailing sequence. He disavowed the viability of the Polvoron phase because its “provisional” place in the sequence was based on one valid date (Dean, 1991:87). Deaver (1997: 459) developed a concordance of chronological sequences showing the geographic and temporal variation for the various centers of the Hohokam culture. He included the Polvoron phase in the sequence for the Phoenix Basin. Deaver’s Phoenix Basin sequence is based on Haury’s 1976 chronology, refined by Dean (1991), with the Polvoron phase added.

Rio Salado Oeste 3-41 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement Even though the Polvoron phase is still controversial (Deaver, 1997), there appears to be a consensus for the Polvoron phase as a cultural manifestation. However, the disagreement is generally based on the temporal placement of the phase (Owen Lindauer, pers. comm., 1999).

Under Haury’s system (1976), the five Hohokam cultural periods (Pioneer, Colonial, Sedentary, Classic, and Post-Classic) were broken down into nine developmental phases. Three problems that persist with the cultural periods involve questions of when and why they began and why they ended. Two phases were added to hopefully address these problems: Red Mountain, which identified the Archaic-Pioneer Transition; and Polvoron, the final Post-Classic phase. As of 1997, the Polvoron was still a controversial phase (Deaver, 1997:463). Dean (1991:62) restates the existing problems with Hohokam chronology. He agrees that there are few problems of concurrence on the sequence of phases and dating of the Colonial-Sedentary and Sedentary- Classic transitions. Dean continues to say that there is still considerable disagreement with phase dates, particularly in Pioneer and Colonial periods, and the beginning and termination of the Hohokam expression. He concluded that, “given these circumstances, it can be seen that a rather uncertain foundation underlies any effort to evaluate the Hohokam chronology.” However, since Dean completed his analysis, major advances in refining Hohokam chronology have been made (Richard Ciolek-Torello, pers. comm., 1999).

Rather than a full description of the chronology of the Hohokam; ethnohistory and ethnography; history; and Previous Work in the Area, as part of this report, please see The Tres Rios Survey: An Archeological Survey of 700 Acres for the Proposed Tres Rios, Arizona Feasibility Study, Maricopa County (McLean and Perry, 2002) for a complete discussion. A Bibliography is also included for additional information.

3.5.3 ETHNOHISTORY AND ETHNOGRAPHY

The Gila River Indian Community (Reservation) is located immediately south of the Salt River. The Gila River bisects the Reservation before its confluence with the Salt River at its northwest corner. Familiarly known as the Pima, the residents prefer their traditional name, Akimel O’odham, meaning the River People. The suffix O’odham means “we the people” (Fontana, 1983). Akimel refers to their inhabiting a riverine environment. Their cultural counterparts, the Tohono O’odham, are the Desert People. Remove the upper case “O” from “O’odham” and the term odham is singular (Barnaby V. Lewis, pers. comm., 1999). They originated in the Salt River Valley, then moved south into the Gila River Valley (Swanton, 1969 [1953]). The O’odham were called Pimas Altos, or upper Pima Indians, by the Spanish to distinguish them from their southern relatives in lower Sonora. The term Pima was used when Ezell (1983) wrote his history of the O’odham. However, since O’odham is preferred, this term will be used here.

There has been a longstanding, unresolved question regarding the lineal relationship between the O’odham and the Hohokam. The question is not with the contemporary O’odham who clearly see themselves as direct descendents. Archeologically, that is another issue because a link has not been firmly demonstrated. Paul Ezell (1983) offered arguments both ways. Haury (1976) wrote that “to assert that there was no connection between the Pima people and the Hohokam requires the removal of the latter from the area by about A.D. 1450 and the introduction of the Pimas with an impressively similar lifeway almost immediately.” Verifying the relationship

Rio Salado Oeste 3-42 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement between the Hohokam and the O’odham is not currently a major research issue. Undoubtedly, someone will find a site that will bridge the gap and finally answer the question archeologically.

The early O’odham were organized around a patrilineal extended family system. Family members included the parents, married sons, and unmarried daughters. Families belonged to clans that were broken down further into moieties. Clans held something of a legitimizing function in the culture. Because they were a patrilineal culture, children of non-O’odham fathers were not accorded clan membership. Marriage was very informal; the couple simply moved in together. Divorces were also subject to the same lack of ceremony. They also had marriage rules that governed incest avoidance. The couple had to be separated by at least five generations.

Even under Spanish colonial rule, the Gila River Indians, known as GileΖo’s, enjoyed something of a privileged position (Ezell, 1983). This privilege was a result of several factors. They were cultivators as opposed to collectors and were thus considered to be productive. While some of the Gila Pimas took part in the revolt of 1843, the followers of Culo Azul stayed out of the fray and thus were considered loyal to the Spanish. The closest Spanish outpost was in Tucson at San Xavier del Bac, so their presence was very understated. They were able to control their lands because of the assumption that they would easily be incorporated into the Spanish or later Mexican, commonwealth (Ezell, 1983:153). Land titles were issued and following the Gadsden Purchase in 1853, the O’odham demonstrated clear Spanish title to their lands.

Neighboring Apaches and Yavapai stepped up attacks on the wealthy O’odham villages. This caused the normally peaceful O’odham to develop a militaristic society. The O’odham changed their raiding strategy from vengeance raids to Spanish-styled offensive incursions. Prowess in battle became honored and the further movement toward a war-oriented culture became quite evident.

Due to the requirements of intensified agriculture and increased raiding by the Apaches and Yavapai, the settlement patterns became denser. By necessity, this caused the further coordination and formalization of the society. Village autonomy suffered because the office of hereditary, paramount chief was established. Culo Azul, who claimed the role of governor, forced this change in political power. Pressure from Apaches was the catalyst that caused the push toward complex political organization and irrigation management (Hackenburg, 1983 citing Drucker, 1941). By the end of the Hispanic period, the O’odham were formally considered a “nation.” The Spanish, Mexicans, and Anglo-Americans easily acknowledged this designation.

For a brief 15-year period, it appeared that the economic times had changed for the O’odham. A very wet period, “the wettest conditions in many centuries” (Hackenburg, 1983) lasted from 1905 until 1920. However, 40 years of extreme drought followed, wiping out all the gains they had recently made. Unfortunately, problems that arose in this debilitating 40-year period persisted until the 1980s, and only now are close to rectification with a new Bureau of Reclamation sponsored irrigation project. The Pima-Maricopa Irrigation Project is only in the early stages of implementation, with the preliminary archeological surveys now underway (Gila River Indian Community, 1998).

Rio Salado Oeste 3-43 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement Table 3.5-1. Hohokam Chronology for the Phoenix Basin

3.5.4 HISTORY

The potential value of the Salt River was realized when, in 1867, John W. “Jack” Swilling first ventured from Wickenburg to John Y. T. Smith’s Hay Station, approximately four miles from present day Phoenix (Granger, 1960). Without a doubt, one of the more colorful people in Arizona’s history, Swilling had compiled quite an impressive resume after arriving in Yuma in 1858.

In 1867, as a farmer visiting Smith’s Hay Station, he observed the long, low earthen ridges radiating out from the Salt River and concluded that these were the remnants of a long forgotten irrigation system (Salt River Project [SRP], 1979; Myers, 1961). This observation prompted him to envision the irrigation potential of the Salt River. Swilling, together with Henry Wickenburg (formerly Heinrich Heintzel), discoverer of the extremely rich Vulture Gold Mine and founder of

Rio Salado Oeste 3-44 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement Wickenburg, and Yuma Ferryman Louis J. F. Jaeger, started the Swilling Irrigating and Canal Company. Jack Swilling’s vision resulted in the growth of Phoenix.

One of the workers hired to begin digging the first canal was the well-schooled Englishman and possible British Army deserter, Lord Bryan Philip Darrel Duppa (Granger, 1960). The impetus to actually begin work on the canal probably was with the erudite Duppa’s pronouncement that a canal could be created when he commented, “of course it’s feasible. I’ve seen it done in Persia” (Myers, 1961). Swilling’s fledgling company was incorporated in Prescott and officially opened for business on December 10, 1867.

The original canal, located in Hayden’s Ferry, was Swilling’s first effort to reopen a prehistoric Hohokam canal. But, he quit after hitting caliche and bedrock. Undaunted, he shifted his operation four miles downstream to another location just east of modern 40th Street (SRP, 1979). This second attempt was successful and became known as the Salt River Valley Canal. It was completed on April 5, 1868 (Myers, 1961; Carlin, 1981) for the meager sum of $400.00 (Horton, 1941:65).

Other canals followed Swilling’s Ditch, developing the agricultural potential of the Salt River Basin. The Maricopa Canal was completed in 1869, the Arizona Canal in 1887, and the Highlands Canal was constructed in 1888. The early canals were beset by their own problems stemming from Salt River floodwaters. Flooding washed out the diversion dams, leaving the head gates high and dry and rendering them useless (Walker and Bufkin, 1986). A number of the historic canals were reconstructed from the old Hohokam canals. The only functional difference between the Hohokam and modern canals is the lack of drop structures and drainage canals in the Hohokam systems according to Nials and Gregory (1989). Nials and Gregory compiled a list of the prehistoric canals and the historic counterparts (1989:45, Table 3.5-2) based on Turney’s research (1929:51-52).

Table 3.5-2. Prehistoric Canals and Their Historic Counterparts

Prehistoric Canal System Historic Equivalent One Tempe Two Grand (Swilling’s first attempt) Three Ditch to Maricopa Reservation Five Dutch Six Farmers Seven Hayden and San Francisco Twelve St. John’s Source: Nials and Gregory, 1989, adapted from Turney, 1929

The Swilling Irrigation Canal Company moved its headquarters from Tempe back to Smith’s Station. But the necessity to have an address for supply deliveries prompted the group to find a more identifiable name (Granger, 1960). In honor of his confederate heritage, Swilling

Rio Salado Oeste 3-45 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement suggested Stonewall. Another trial name was Salina. That was voted down because of the implications that the area was a salt marsh. The final selection was Duppa’s who was mindful of the group’s efforts to reopen the Hohokam canal, and had been reverentially impressed with the Hohokam’s engineering skills. While clearing the old canal, Duppa expected that the Hohokam were able to set a proper gradient. During construction of the new canal, Duppa had quipped to Swilling, “I’m counting on them, though it’s hard to see how they did it without a logarithm in their breech clouts” (Myers, 1961).

Duppa foresaw a new city as a Phoenix rising from the ashes of the old civilization. He is credited with giving the valley its name by declaring...“As the mythical phoenix rose reborn from its ashes, so shall a great civilization rise here in the ashes of a past civilization. I name thee Phoenix.” Duppa is also quoted with a different version of his famous proclamation (Horton, 1941:15). Alternatively he may have said “A new city shall spring Phoenix-like upon the ruins of a former civilization.” In any event, Phoenix became the new town’s name. By 1871, Phoenix was an official town. The number of townspeople had risen to 300, a far cry from the old Smith Hay Station: population 1. All the original lots had been sold and the town was formally mapped. Phoenix was one-mile-long, one-half-mile-wide, and encompassed 96 blocks. Washington Street was the first main street running east west. The Salt River Valley Post Office was moved to Phoenix, and the first County election was held. In 1872, the 320 acre Townsite of Phoenix was officially filed in Prescott.

In 1877, the newly incorporated Sacramento Canal Company (SCC) drew 10,000 miner’s inches of water from the north side of the Salt River, 7.5 miles east of the Agua Fria River. The SCC canal was ten miles long comparable to the Farmers Canal also on the north side of the Salt River and eight miles to the east. Lowendorf (n.d.) noted that the head of the SCC canal was probably between today’s 75th and 83rd Avenues. After further analysis, Lowendorf concluded that the SCC canal was probably a reopened Hohokam Canal that was affiliated with the nearby Hohokam site at Cashion. Both Omar Turney and Frank Midvale had identified a prehistoric feature at the site of the head of the SCC canal.

W. H. St. John and three colleagues constructed the 12-mile-long old St. Johns Canal near the present project area in Cashion in 1887. The canal’s head was near where 83rd Avenue is located. By 1907, apparently all the other canals had disappeared. Surveyors for the Salt River Project (SRP) had mapped the area and the old St Johns Canal was the only one shown. An article in the Phoenix Herald in 1887 (Lowendorf, n.d.) drew attention to the new canal. An unnamed columnist wrote that four men, A. B. Smallwood, W. H. St. John, H. Warren, and Dan Martin had been working for a month on a new canal on the Salt River. The canal was designed to carry 5,000 miners inches of water and irrigate a 40 square mile area. The canal will be diverted on the Agua Fria near Yuma Road at a point where a “reef of rocks” provided a steady flow of water. According to Lowendorf (n.d.), other canals including the prehistoric Cashion Canal were probably dug in the same area.

Due to changing times, possibly associated with all the dams on the Salt and Verde Rivers drying up its water source, the old St. Johns Canal ceased to exist (Lowendorf, n.d.). In its place is the modern St. Johns Canal, which is fed from a well. The modern canal runs parallel to Southern Avenue for four miles and stops about one-half mile past its intersection with Dysart Road.

Rio Salado Oeste 3-46 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.5.5 PREVIOUS WORK IN STUDY AREA

The earliest known archaeological work in the vicinity of the Rio Salado Oeste project involved Adolph Bandelier’s and Frank Cushing’s studies in the 1880s of Pueblo Grande approximately 15 miles to the east (Downum and Bostwick, 1993:17-21) and investigations of the prehistoric Hohokam canals (Hodge, 1893; Patrick, 1903).

The eastern portion of Cashion Ruin was recorded by Frank Midvale in 1923. Turney documented the western portion of Cashion Ruin in 1925 with updates in 1929 and 1935. Cashion Ruin was recorded again and trenched in 1939 by Audie R. Kelley as part of the Salt River Valley Stratigraphic Survey financed by the U.S. Works Progress Administration and headquartered at Pueblo Grande Museum under Director Odd Halseth (Downum and Bostwick, 1993:212-220).

Glen Rice (pers. comm., 1999) said that Midvale’s Canal Cashion may not have actually been a canal, and that Midvale’s site map was south of the site’s actual location. During the Museum of Northern Arizona’s (MNA) excavation of the Cashion Site, Antieau (1981) noted that he was unable to locate either the Canal Cashion or three Casa Grande type ballcourts, probably due to this locational error. Midvale mapped all the ruins in the Palo Verde project area right-of-way in 1967 and in some cases corrected Turney’s locations (cf. Legend on Midvale’s’ map of the Cashion ruins in Antieau (1981:42). Antieau’s excavations verified that Turney was in fact correct and Midvale was incorrect (Antieau, 1978).

Following Turney, Frank Midvale developed an interest in prehistoric irrigation and spent the 1920s, 30s, and 60s investigating every lead he could in an attempt to retrace the flow of irrigation water through the Salt-Gila Basin (Antieau, 1981:8). He had also mapped the five sites that were excavated by the MNA for the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Wastewater Conveyance System (PVNGSWCS).

The Cashion site, NA 14690, was excavated by the MNA in 1977 and 1978 (Antieau, 1981). Midvale originally mapped the Cashion site in 1927 when he called it Los Conejos (Antieau, 1981:144). Estimated to cover approximately 640 acres, the Cashion site was listed on the National Register of Historic Places on December 19, 1978 (reference No. 78000547). It is the largest site excavated near the confluence of the Salt and Gila Rivers, one of the largest and the most complex in the Salt-Gila River Valley (Stein 1977), and equals Snaketown in size (Antieau, 1981). Encompassing dates from A.D. 500 - 1150, the Cashion site was occupied from the Pioneer through the Classic Periods (Stein, 1977; Antieau, 1981). By the end of the Classic Period, Cashion was largely abandoned.

3.5.6 RECORDS AND LITERATURE SEARCH

For the purposes of the record and literature investigation, the following description was used. The study area is approximately eight miles long extending from 19th Avenue on the east to 83rd Avenue on the west and from Lower Buckeye Road on the north to Baseline Road on the south. The project implementation area extends from 19th Avenue on the east to 83rd Avenue on the

Rio Salado Oeste 3-47 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement west, and is the area within the 100-year floodplain of the Salt River. The project Area of Potential Effect (APE) is on average approximately two-thirds of a mile wide and consists of approximately 3,315 acres.

A literature search of the proposed project area was performed through the Arizona State Museum, Arizona State Office of Historic Preservation, the City of Phoenix, and Corps of Engineers files. This search indicated that archeologists had never surveyed the APE.

3.5.7 RECOMMENDATIONS

Geoarchaeological investigations were conducted for the Tres Rios project (Onken et al., 2005), which provide a very good reconstruction of the floodplain history just west (downstream) of the Rio Salado Oeste study area, at the junction of the Salt and Agua Fria Rivers with the Gila River. The results of the Tres Rios geomorphological investigation suggest that 94 percent of that project area has no or low sensitivity for buried prehistoric sites.

Given Rio Salado Oeste’s study area location upstream of Tres Rios, it is reasonable to conclude that the alluvial stratigraphy of the lower Salt River might be comparable. The entire length of the Salt River within the Oeste study area boundary appears to have been more disturbed than areas downstream, and has been modified through natural scouring action of periodic flooding, sand and gravel mining, and dumping.

Surveys of selected portions of the river, at all outfalls and adjacent or nearest terrace, were conducted by a Corps of Engineers staff archeologist. No cultural material was observed at any of these areas. The effects of the above mentioned impacts on the river are evident at the outfalls and surrounding areas. Based on the reconnaissance survey, level of disturbance, and data provided by the Tres Rios geological assessment, the Corps believes that the potential for buried archeological resources within the project area is low. Additional surveys would be conducted as necessary during the design phase.

A letter was sent to the Arizona State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) on July 6, 2005, with our determinations in accordance with 36 CFR 800.4(d). The SHPO provided a response in a letter dated August 10, 2005. This letter concurred with the APE as described in Section 3.5.6 above. The SHPO requested a written report of the survey conducted by Corps personnel. A Memorandum of Record (MFR) was completed describing the survey conducted in March, 2004. Copies of all these documents can be found in Appendix N of the Feasibility Report. The Rio Salado Oeste project is in compliance with Section 106 (36 CFR 800) of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA – Public Law 89-665; 16 USC 470-470m, as amended, 16 USC 460b, 470l-470n).

All supporting documentation required under 36 CFR 800.11(d) were sent to the SHPO. This includes the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS). The archeologist representing the City of Phoenix has received copies of SHPO communications in addition to a copy of the DEIS.

Rio Salado Oeste 3-48 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement 3.5.8 NATIVE AMERICAN CONCERNS

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 require that government agencies consult with Native Americans to determine their interests in federal projects. For the Rio Salado Oeste study, consultation was initiated with the following tribes: Ak-Chin Indian Community; Gila River Indian Community; Hopi Tribe; Pascua Yaqui Tribe; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community; Tohono O'odham Nation, and; Yavapai-Apache Nation. Letters including project descriptions and requests for comments were sent to these tribes noted below on July 6, 2005. The memorandum for record was transmitted to the tribes on October 6, 2005. The DEIS, including all identification, evaluation, and mitigation studies, was sent to the tribes for comment. A copy of the FEIS will also be sent.

3.6 AESTHETICS

3.6.1 INTRODUCTION

This section describes the existing aesthetic resources and conditions in the study area. A description of local governmental organizations with jurisdiction in the area is also provided, along with the regulatory setting guiding aesthetic resources in the area. Please refer to Sections 3.1, “Geology and Topography,” 3.2, “Hydrology and Water Resources,” and 3.11 “Land Use,” for other details on the physical conditions that influence the visual and aesthetic character of the study area.

3.6.2 GENERAL PROJECT SETTING

The study area is located in the eastern portion of Maricopa County, just north of the southern City of Phoenix boundary and South Mountain. The study area is located within a subdivision of the Sonoran Desert referred to as the Lower ColoradoValley, the Lower Sonoran or the microphyllous desert. This area is the largest and most arid subdivision of the Sonoran Desert. Low annual precipitation and high temperatures support relatively sparse vegetation. Characteristic species include blue paloverde (Cercidium floridum), creosotebush (Larrea tridentata) and bursage (Ambrosia spp.) (City of Phoenix, 1998).

Terrain ranges from hills and rock outcrops south of the study area to alluvium within the river floodplains to the north. Surrounding land on the western end of the study area is relatively flat and rural (rural residential, agricultural, dairy farms, open space and gravel mining), while the eastern portion of the study area is generally urban in character and land uses (residential, agricultural, light industry, manufacturing, commercial, gravel mining and vacant land). The slopes in the study area range from 0 and 2 percent (Maricopa County, 1992a). The study area includes the floodway and adjacent land uses. The study area stretches through urbanized Phoenix on the east and rural areas to the west, and is essentially a wide dry wash dominated by large expanses of sand, cobbles and sediment (silt and clay). The interior floor of the Salt River Valley is comprised of thick layers of alluvium on nearly level or gently sloping surfaces.

Rio Salado Oeste 3-49 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement 3.6.3 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AREA

Views of the study area are limited due to existing development and lack of public access points along the banks. Views within the wash are characterized by diverse channel widths and include dry cobble/dirt, trash, debris and open water-dominated reaches. Generally, area topography is flat. This lack of topographic features limits long-range viewing opportunities along river channels. Very few vegetative communities exist within or along the sides of the wash. Visible degradation of the streambed in the eastern half of the study area has resulted from illegal dumping of garbage, household trash, commercial waste, used furniture, appliances, abandoned cars, tires, off-road vehicle use, gravel mining, and debris left over from unauthorized/illegal target shooting activities. Prominent features that can be viewed adjacent to Salt River include power lines and towers, scattered rural development on the western half of the study area, and light industrial, manufacturing and commercial auto salvage uses along the eastern half. Most notably, sand and gravel mining operations within and along the banks of the study area have significantly degraded visual resources and aesthetic conditions. Long-distance views include Sierra Estrella and South Mountain to the south, Camelback Mountain and the Phoenix Mountains to the northeast, and the White Tank Mountains to the northwest. Descriptions of the views from various locations along the study corridor are provided below.

35th Avenue: Views of the Salt River from the vicinity of 35th Avenue are wide open, revealing broad, relatively flat areas of cobble and dirt. Surface sediment is mostly fine sand, silt and clay. This portion of Salt River is used as an illegal dumping site for commercial and residential refuse and other materials. Domestic refuse and construction debris is common along this river section. Vegetation is exceedingly sparse in this area. To the north are gravel mining operations, industrial and warehouse uses. To the south are auto salvage and commercial uses.

43rd Avenue: Views of the Salt River from the vicinity of 43rd Avenue are unobstructed. This portion of the Salt River is also used as an illegal dumping site for commercial and residential refuse and other materials. Trash and debris are common along this section of the Salt River. Vegetation on the flat, dry landscape is very sparse in this area. Power lines and buildings can be seen in the distance. To the north are gravel mining operations. To the south are residential and manufacturing uses. Gravel mining continues on both sides of the wash from 43rd Avenue to the western end of the study area.

83rd Avenue: The study area east of 83rd Avenue consists of riparian habitat, including cottonwood/willow and salt cedar growing adjacent to the river channel at the on-grade river crossing. Vegetation on the flat, dry landscape is very sparse to the east of this crossing. Low- density, agriculture-related residential structures and crop fields are present to the north and south.

Broadway Road: The study area between the channel and Broadway Road consists of gravel mining operations in and along the channel and agricultural fields to the north. Vegetation within the channel is very sparse. New residential development is expanding from east to west along Broadway Road, displacing agriculture and dairy farms.

Rio Salado Oeste 3-50 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement 3.6.4 REGULATORY SETTING

Pertinent regulations, plans, goals and policies, related to aesthetic resources of the Rio Salado Oeste study area, are described below.

3.6.4.1 Maricopa County

Portions of the study area are within unincorporated Maricopa County and governed by county planning. The Maricopa County General Plan is divided into a series of land use plans for the area. Plans relative to the Oeste Project include the Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan, the Estrella Planning Area Land Use Plan, the Laveen Planning Area Land Use Plan (Maricopa County, 1997), and the City of Phoenix General Plan.

3.6.4.2 Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan

The Comprehensive Plan seeks to establish a network of protected open spaces that correspond to regionally significant mountains, rivers, washes and upland deserts. The existing and future open space areas are important to the quality of life in the county and are intended to be planned and managed to protect, maintain and enhance their intrinsic value for recreational, aesthetic and biological purposes. Dedicated Open Space areas are those areas that are under public ownership (except state trust land) that have unique environmental and physical qualities. These areas include mountains and foothills, rivers and washes, canals, significant desert vegetation, wildlife habitat and cultural resources. Within Maricopa County, Dedicated Open Space exists in the form of regional parks, wilderness areas, wildlife areas and in Tonto National Forest. Dedicated Open Space currently comprises approximately 2,000 square miles, with another proposed 650 square miles of open space in the unincorporated areas of the county.

According to the Comprehensive Plan, complementing open spaces and parks are visual resources. These are to include scenic corridors and vistas that offer county residents an opportunity to view the natural environment without manmade intrusions. Major rivers and washes thread through the region providing uninterrupted views of mountains, vegetation and wildlife native to the county. Major roads offer motorists scenic vistas as they travel.

3.6.4.3 Estrella Planning Area Land Use Plan

The Estrella Planning Area Land Use Plan (Maricopa County, 1992a) regulates planning and development activities within its jurisdiction of unincorporated Maricopa County. The Estrella Planning Area is currently highly rural in character and is considered an island of farming activity, surrounded by more urban-type development. The Salt River and the areas immediately north of it are designated as “Open Space” by the Estrella Land Use Plan. This category denotes areas that would be best precluded from development for any reasons except as open space or recreation areas, to potentially include parks, drainageways and scenic areas (Maricopa County, 1992a).

Rio Salado Oeste 3-51 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement 3.6.4.4 Laveen Planning Area Land Use Plan

The Laveen Planning Area Land Use Plan (Maricopa County, 1992b) regulates planning and development activities for approximately 30 square miles of unincorporated Maricopa County south of the Salt River. The area is generally characterized by rural ranchettes, cultivated farmland and dairy farms. There is a small urban area within Phoenix in the northeastern portion of the planning area. The portion of the Laveen Planning Area along the south banks of the Salt River is currently vacant. Minor amounts of developed land and agricultural land use are nearby. Industrial development and a considerable number of auto wrecking and salvage operations are located in the northeast quadrant closest to Phoenix (Maricopa County, 1992b).

3.6.4.5 City of Phoenix General Plan

The City of Phoenix General Plan (City of Phoenix, 2001b) regulates planning and development activities within incorporated areas of the city in the study area vicinity. The General Plan’s mission is to help achieve the City’s vision by preserving the culture, heritage and natural and manmade environment. The General Plan also acknowledges that preserved natural areas provide visual and emotional relief from day-to-day stresses of life in the urban setting, recreation, and habitat for native flora and fauna. Sonoran Desert, mountains, and wash terrain features define these major natural areas (City of Phoenix, 2001b).

3.6.4.6 Gila River Indian Community

The Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) is considered a Sovereign Nation, and is not under the regulatory or political jurisdiction of any local government or the federal government. No GRIC lands are located within the project implementation area, though some project features could be visible from tribal lands. The GRIC does not have any established regulations or plans for visual resources.

Rio Salado Oeste 3-52 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement 3.7 AIR QUALITY

3.7.1 INTRODUCTION

This section describes the existing climate, meteorology, and ambient air quality in the region of the study area, along with the regulatory requirements associated with the management of air pollutants.

3.7.2 CLIMATE AND METEOROLOGY

The proposed Rio Salado Oeste project is located within Salt River Valley (Valley) at an elevation of approximately 335 meters (1,100 feet). The Valley is oval shaped and flat, except for scattered precipitous mountains rising to as much as 460 meters (1,500 feet) above the Valley floor. The study area is characterized as a desert with hot summers, mild winters, and low annual rainfall. As shown in Table 3.7-1, summer mean high and low temperatures (July) in Phoenix are 41°C (106°F) and 27°C (81°F), respectively. Mean high and low temperatures for winter (January) are 19°C (66°F) and 5°C (41°F), respectively. Precipitation in the study area is approximately seven inches annually.

Precipitation occurs in two distinct seasons of the year; the summer monsoon season (July, August, September, and into October) and winter (December, January, February, and March). Rainfall is unusual in late May and June. There is a transition from generally dry conditions during the spring and early summer associated with the prevailing mid-latitude westerlies, to deep southeasterly or southerly winds that transport moisture from the Gulf of Mexico and the tropical eastern North Pacific. The change in air mass provides conditions favorable for the formation of deep convection that is typical of the summer in the southwest U.S. (ASU, 2005). Summer rains in the form of thunderstorms originate in moist air that flows into Arizona from the Gulf of Mexico and the tropical east Pacific. These storms generally occur in middle to late afternoon, and are usually of local extent. Approximately 80 percent of the thunderstorms over the basin occur in the summer months. Floods can occur from heavy thunderstorms, but are typically of short duration (lasting up to three hours).

Winter precipitation is normally associated with the passage of cyclonic storm centers originating in the Pacific Ocean, which commonly are a result of interaction between polar Pacific and tropical Pacific air masses. Some snow falls at the higher elevations, but the effect on flood flows is negligible. Individual storms usually are of several days' duration and wide aerial extent, with slow and steady intensity. Winter floods from these storms are of longer duration with lower flood crests.

As described in Table 3.7-1, the Valley is characterized by light wind speeds that range from 8.2 kilometers per hour (kph) [5.1 miles per hour (mph)] in December to 11.4 kph (7.1 mph) in July. Less frequently, widespread gusty winds occur over all areas of the Valley.

Rio Salado Oeste 3-53 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement Table 3.7-1. Monthly Temperature, Precipitation and Wind Speed in Phoenix

Temperature Precipitation Wind Month Maximum Minimum Speed °F °C °F °C inches cm mph Kph January 65.9 18.8 41.2 5.1 0.67 1.7 5.3 8.5 February 70.7 21.5 44.7 7.1 0.68 1.73 5.8 9.5 March 75.5 24.2 48.8 9.3 0.88 2.24 6.6 10.6 April 84.5 29.2 55.3 12.9 0.22 0.56 6.9 11.1 May 93.6 34.2 63.9 17.7 0.12 0.3 7.0 11.3 June 103.5 39.7 72.9 22.7 0.13 0.33 6.8 10.9 July 105.9 41.1 81 27.2 0.83 2.11 7.1 11.4 August 103.7 39.8 79.2 26.2 0.96 2.44 6.6 10.6 September 98.3 36.8 72.8 22.7 0.86 2.18 6.3 10.1 October 88.1 31.2 60.8 16 0.65 1.65 5.8 9.3 November 74.9 23.8 48.9 9.4 0.66 1.68 5.3 8.5 December 66.2 19 41.8 5.4 1.0 2.54 5.1 8.2 Source: National Climatic Data Center, Phoenix Annual Summary of the Local Climatological Data

3.7.3 EXISTING AIR QUALITY

3.7.3.1 Criteria Pollutants

The quality of the surface air (air quality) is evaluated by measuring ambient concentrations of pollutants that are known to have deleterious effects. The degree of air quality degradation is then compared to the ambient air quality standards (AAQS). A summary of the air quality status in the study area (i.e., generally the urban area of Maricopa County) relative to the AAQS, is provided in Table 3.7-2.

Rio Salado Oeste 3-54 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement Table 3.7-2. Attainment Status and Conformity Thresholds

December 2005 Maricopa County Area, Arizona

Federal Register Conformity Pollutant Attainment Status Citation Threshold

70 FR 11553 Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Area 100 tons/yr March 9, 2005 Ozone: VOC & 8-hr Standard 69 FR 23858 VOC: 100 tons/yr.

NOx Basic Nonattainment April 30, 2004 NOX: 100 tons/yr Area Serious Nonattainment June 10, 1996 PM-10 70 tons/yr Area (61 FR 21372) 70 FR 944 PM-2.5 Attainment Area N/A January 5, 2005

Non-attainment is a term used to indicate the violation of a particular AAQS. Both the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) and Maricopa County have adopted the federal AAQS, and do not enforce a separate set of standards. Air quality in the vicinity of the study area has experienced exceedances of the AAQS for fine particulate matter (PM-10) on several days each year. As a result, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and ADEQ have classified Maricopa County as a serious non-attainment area for federal AAQS for PM-10. A portion of Maricopa County is also in basic nonattainment of the 8-hour ozone standard. The Ozone and PM-10 nonattainment areas are shown in Figure 3.7-1.

Rio Salado Oeste 3-55 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 3.7-1. Maricopa County PM-10 and Ozone Nonattainment Areas (MCAQD, 2004a)

Source: 2002 Periodic Emissions Inventory for PM-10 for the Maricopa County, Arizona, Nonattainment Area, June 2004, Revised March 2006, prepared by the Maricopa County Environmental Services Department and the Maricopa Association of Governments

ADEQ and Maricopa County Air Quality Department operate a countywide network of air pollution monitoring stations, including several in the study area. The air quality monitoring station nearest the study area is the West Forth Third Station (43rd Avenue and Broadway Road), located at a Maricopa County Department of Transportation storage lot. The second closest station is the Durango Complex (27th Avenue and Durango Street), located one mile northwest from the former Salt River site in the Maricopa County Flood Control District storage yard. Data from these sites provide a general profile of air quality within the study area. Table 3.7-3 lists the monitoring stations and presents ambient air quality concentrations recorded for PM-10 in 2002 through August, 2006, as well as the number of days the ambient concentrations exceeded federal/state AAQS. Ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and carbon monoxide (CO) are not monitored at these stations. This is because the EPA guidance on siting monitors requires that monitors for ozone, nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide levels be located where levels of these pollutants are higher. PM-10 monitors are located in the study area because of the PM-10 sources in the vicinity.

Rio Salado Oeste 3-56 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement Table 3.7-3. Air Quality Monitoring Stations

Monitoring Station Pollutant Standards 27th Ave. & Durango Street 43rd Ave. & Broadway Road 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Ozone (O3) Maximum NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM Concentration (ppm) Days > NAAQS NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM (0.08 ppm) Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Maximum NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM Concentration (μg/m3) Days > NAAQS NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM (100 μg/m3) Particulates (PM-10) Maximum 232 195 209 206 172 157 251 233 Concentration Days > NAAQS 2 1 0 13 9* 1 1 1 13 13* (150 μg/m3) Carbon Monoxide (CO) Maximum NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM Concentration (ppm) Days > NAAQS NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM (9.0 ppm)

Notes: ppm = parts per million; μg/m³ = micrograms per cubic meter; NM = not monitored. Source: Maricopa County Air Quality Department Website. http://www.maricopa.gov/aq/status.aspx. *2005 exceedances for PM-10 are based on preliminary data that has not been quality assured.

3.7.3.2 Toxic Air Contaminants

Hazardous Air Pollutants: In addition to criteria pollutants, other regulated pollutants include hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) which are suspected or known to cause cancer, genetic mutations, birth defects or other serious illnesses in exposed people. HAPs are not regulated by federal AAQS, but are addressed by National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) and Title III of 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments.

The concentrations of toxic pollutants are determined by the level of emissions, at the source, and the meteorological conditions encountered as these pollutants are transported away from the source. Impacts from toxic pollutant emissions tend to be site specific and their intensity is subject to constantly changing meteorological conditions.

Rio Salado Oeste 3-57 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement 3.7.4 REGULATORY SETTING

3.7.4.1 Federal, State, and County Regulations

Federal, state and regional agencies have established standards and regulations addressing air pollutant emissions that affect proposed projects. The following federal and state regulatory considerations may apply to the project.

• The federal Clean Air Act of 1970 directs the attainment and maintenance of National AAQS for six “criteria” pollutants (e.g., ozone, carbon monoxide, etc.).

• The 1997 Clean Air Act enacted legislation to control seven air toxic pollutants. EPA adopted the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), which was designed to control Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP) emissions to prevent adverse health effects in humans.

• The 1990 Amendments to this Act determine attainment and maintenance of NAAQS (Title I), motor vehicles and reformulation (Title II), hazardous air pollutants (Title III), acid deposition (Title IV), operating permits (Title V), stratospheric ozone protection (Title VI), and enforcement (Title VII).

• Clean Air Act implements the New Source Review (NSR) and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations.

• Maricopa Air Pollution Control Regulations Rule 310.

• Arizona State revised Statute Title 49.

3.7.4.2 Federal Conformity Requirements

Federal projects are subject to either the Transportation Conformity Rule (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR], Part 51, Subpart T), which applies to federal highway or transit projects, or the General Conformity Rule (40 CFR Part 51, Subpart W), which applies to all other federal projects. Because the proposed action is not a federal highway or transit project, it is subject to the General Conformity Rule. The purpose of the General Conformity Rule is to ensure that federal projects conform to applicable State Implementation Plans (SIP) so that they do not interfere with strategies employed to attain the NAAQSs. The rule applies to federal projects in areas designated as non-attainment areas for any of the six criteria pollutants for which the EPA has established NAAQSs and, in some areas, designated as maintenance areas. Maintenance areas are former non-attainment areas which have subsequently met the NAAQSs, and that have submitted an approved Maintenance Plan to demonstrate continued attainment. The General Conformity Rule applies to all federal projects except:

• programs specifically included in a transportation plan or program that is found to conform under the federal transportation conformity rule,

Rio Salado Oeste 3-58 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement • projects with associated emissions below specified de minimus threshold levels, and;

• certain other projects that are exempt or presumed to conform.

The study area is in a serious non-attainment area for federal PM-10 standards. The area is also designated as a maintenance area for carbon monoxide (CO), and a basic non-attainment area for 8-hour ozone (O3). The applicable de minimus thresholds are provided in Table 3.7-2. If the Rio Salado Oeste project would result in total direct and indirect emissions in excess of the de minimus emission rates, it must be demonstrated that the emissions conform with the applicable SIP for each affected pollutant. If emissions would not exceed the de minimus levels, the project is presumed to conform and no further analysis or determination is required.

3.7.4.3 Regional and Local Regulations

The proposed project would be located entirely within Maricopa County, and is under the jurisdiction of the Maricopa County Air Quality Department (AQD). Therefore, emissions that would result from the construction and maintenance of the project are subject to rules and regulations of the Maricopa County AQD. The rules and regulations of this agency help achieve defined air quality standards that are protective of public health by specifying emission controls and control technologies for each type of emitting source.

3.8 NOISE

3.8.1 INTRODUCTION

This section describes the existing noise setting in the vicinity of the Rio Salado Oeste study area, including noise sources and the regulatory setting for noise. General information about noise is also provided.

3.8.2 GENERAL NOISE SETTING

A noise environment consists of a base of steady background noise derived from many distant and indistinguishable noise sources combined with sound from individual local sources. In the study area, these local sources include frequent aircraft flyovers, traffic noise from area streets, and sand and gravel mining operations along the study area.

3.8.2.1 Description of Noise Characteristics

Noise is measured on the decibel (dB) scale, which quantifies sound intensity. Because the human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies within the entire spectrum, noise measurements are weighted more heavily within those frequencies of maximum human sensitivity (a process called “A-weighting”). The human ear can detect changes in sound levels of approximately 3 A-weighted decibels (dBA) under normal conditions. Changes of 1 to 3 dBA are typically noticeable under controlled conditions, whereas changes of less than 1 dBA are only discernable under controlled, extremely quiet conditions. A change of 5 dBA is typically

Rio Salado Oeste 3-59 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement noticeable by the general public in an outdoor environment. Noise may be generated from a point source, such as a piece of construction equipment, or from a line source, such as a road containing moving vehicles. Noise attenuates (decreases) with distance at a rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance for a point source and 3 dB per doubling of distance from a line source.

The rate at which noise attenuates can also be affected by the type of terrain over which the noise passes. For an acoustically soft site, such as undeveloped areas, open space, and vegetated areas, noise from a line source attenuates at a rate of 4.5 dBA per doubling of the distance. These rates represent the extremes, and most areas contain a combination of hard and soft elements, with the noise attenuation falling somewhere between these two attenuation factors. Objects that block the line of sight attenuate the noise source if the receptor is located within the “shadow” of the blockage, such as behind a sound wall. If a receptor is located behind the wall but has a view of the source, the wall will do little to attenuate the noise. Additionally, a receptor located on the same side of the wall as the noise source may experience an increase in the perceived noise level because the wall will reflect noise back to the receptor, possibly compounding the noise. Time variation in noise exposure is typically expressed in terms of the average energy over time (called Leq), or alternatively, as a statistical description of the sound level that is exceeded over some fraction of a given observation period.

3.8.2.2 Effects of Noise

High noise levels can interfere with a broad range of human activities in a way that degrades public health and welfare. Such activities may include;

• speech communication in conversation and teaching, • telephone communication, • listening to television and radio, • listening to music, • concentration during mental and physical activities, • relaxation, and • sleep.

Interference with listening situations can be determined in terms of the level of environmental noise and its characteristics. The amount of interference in non-listening situations often depends on factors other than the physical characteristics of the noise. These may include attitude toward the source of an identifiable noise, familiarity with the noise, characteristics of the exposed individual, and the intrusiveness of the noise.

3.8.2.3 Noise Sources

The study area is located in a mixed setting containing both urbanized areas and semi-rural areas. The study area has a moderate activity level and few sources of adverse noise. Sand and gravel mining operations are the largest contributors to ambient noise levels in the area. Vehicular traffic on streets that cross the study area (across the Salt River in a north-south direction) is another contributor of ambient noise. Study area traffic noise may be characterized as light and not considered to be significant. Aircraft departing from and entering Phoenix Sky Harbor

Rio Salado Oeste 3-60 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement Airport also contribute to the ambient noise in the study area. This airport is not within the immediate vicinity of the study area, though the study area runs generally parallel to the airport’s takeoff and approach zone. Because aircraft produce intense noise and pass over the area at relatively low altitudes, these aircraft are considered to be moderate noise sources.

3.8.2.4 Sensitive Receptors

The study area contains residential, agricultural, industrial, and commercial land uses. Sensitive receptors for noise in the study area consist of residential uses located to the north of the river channel and a few scattered houses on the south side of the river channel.

3.8.3 REGULATORY SETTING

3.8.3.1 Federal and State Standards and Regulations

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has identified the relationship between noise levels and human response. HUD has determined that over a 24-hour period, an Leq of 70 dBA will result in some hearing loss. Interference with activity and annoyance will not occur if exterior levels are maintained at an Leq of 55 dBA and interior levels at or below 45 dBA. Although these levels are relevant for planning and design and are useful for informational purposes, they are not land use planning criteria because they do not consider economic cost, technical feasibility, or the needs of the community. In addition to the Leq limitations discussed above, in accordance with 24 CFR 51, Subpart B, “Noise Abatement and Control,” HUD set 55- dBA day-night average sound level (Ldn) as the basic goal for residential noise intrusion. Other federal agencies, in consideration of their own program requirements and goals, as well as the difficulty of actually achieving a goal of 55-dBA Ldn, have settled on the 65-dBA Ldn level as their standard. At 65-dBA Ldn, activity interference is kept to a minimum, and annoyance levels are still low. It is also a level that can realistically be achieved.

The federal government regulates occupational noise exposure common in the workplace through the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA). Noise exposure of this type is dependent on work conditions and is addressed through a facility’s or construction contractor’s health and safety plan. With the exception of construction workers involved in facility construction, occupational noise is irrelevant to this study and is not further addressed in this document.

3.8.3.2 Regional and Local Standards and Regulations

Local governmental jurisdictions are responsible for regulating noise within their respective political boundaries. Specific noise regulations are discussed in the respective zoning ordinances for each of the local jurisdictions, where applicable.

3.8.3.2.1 Maricopa County

Maricopa County does not have a noise ordinance. Noise-producing aspects of new projects and existing development fall under the jurisdiction of individual cites in which a given development

Rio Salado Oeste 3-61 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement is located. On October 20, 1997, the County adopted the Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan, which contains a noise element. The Comprehensive Plan states that due to increased highway traffic, air traffic, construction, industrial and commercial activities brought about by growth and development, noise has become an increasing concern to both the public and governmental agencies. The Comprehensive Plan sets forth Objectives and Policies to reduce or eliminate sources of noise, including unnecessary traffic (Maricopa County Planning and Development Department, 1997).

3.8.3.2.2 City of Phoenix

The Phoenix Zoning Ordinance specifies the average noise levels for various land use categories. The City Code includes specific hours for construction operations (Section 23-14, h). During weekdays, construction hours include the period between 6:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. from the first day of May to and including the 30th day of September, and between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. beginning the first day of October to and including the 30th day of April. Extended construction work hour permits would be required for Saturdays, Sundays, and hours that are beyond the construction periods described above.

3.9 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC RESOURCES

3.9.1 INTRODUCTION

This section presents information regarding the social and economic resources that exist in the vicinity of the study area. A description of the population characteristics, including population, ethnicity, housing trends, local industries and employment rates is provided below. In addition, environmental justice issues are presented. The data and associated tables and figures presented in this section are based on information obtained from 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census Bureau surveys for Maricopa County, Maricopa Association of Governments (1997) and Arizona Department of Economic Security (1997 and 2000) web sites. These sites provided information regrading population- and housing-growth forecasts and other demographic projections for the County and local municipalities. In this socioeconomic report section, the term study area refers to the group of census tracts that exist within or extend into the study area. Whenever possible, the 1990 census information has been supplemented by the most current information available from the aforementioned sources and from the online database of the City of Phoenix (2002).

3.9.2 GENERAL SOCIOECONOMIC SETTING

3.9.2.1 Population

The southern portion of the study area lies in the southwest portion of the City of Phoenix, Arizona (City), which has a total population of 1,321,045 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). Table 3.9-1, “Population and Household Characteristics in the Vicinity of the Study Area,” shows the 2000 population and household and family structure for the County and study area. In 2000, the population in the County totaled 3,072,149 people (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). The Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) projects that the County’s population will grow to

Rio Salado Oeste 3-62 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement approximately 3,709,566 by 2010, and to approximately 4,516,090 by 2020, increases of 637,417 and 1,443,941 people, respectively (MAG, 2002). The study area includes only 1.6% of the total County population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000).

Table 3.9-1. Population and Household Characteristics in the Vicinity of the Study Area

Number of Persons per Number of Persons per Jurisdiction Population Households Household Families Family Maricopa County 3,072,149 3,027,366 2.67 763,110 3.21 Study Area 48,854 11,504 3.93 9,362 4.20 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000

3.9.2.2 Ethnicity

Table 3.9-2, “Ethnic Population Characteristics in the Vicinity of the Study Area,” shows the ethnic makeup of the County and the study area in 2000. The approximate population breakdown of the County by ethnicity is: 66.2% white, 24.8% Hispanic, 3.5% African American, 1.4% American Indian and Alaskan Native, 2.1% Asian, 0.05 % Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, 0.1% other races, and 1.5% two or more races (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000).

Table 3.9-2. Ethnic Population Characteristics in the Vicinity of the Study Area

Native American Two Black or Hawaiian Hispanic Indian or or Jurisdiction White African Asian or other Other or Alaskan more American Pacific Lation Native Races Islander Maricopa 2,034,530 108,521 45,703 64,562 3,725 4,086 763,341 47,681 County Percent of County 66.2% 3.5% 1.5% 2.1% 0.1% 0.1% 24.8% 1.6% Total Rio Salado Oeste 11,714 2,918 3,019 166 31 47 30,543 416 Study Area Percent of Study Area 24.0% 6.0% 6.2% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1% 62.5% 0.9 Total Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000

Rio Salado Oeste 3-63 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement The ethnic composition of the study area differs from that of the County as a whole, most notably in the proportions of white and Hispanic residents. The proportions of the other races do differ as well, although not as much. The approximate population breakdown in the study area is: 24.3% white, 62.0% Hispanic, 5.9% African American, 6.2% American Indian and Alaskan Native, 0.3% Asian, 0.06% Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, 0.09% other races, and 0.85% more than two races.

3.9.2.3 Housing

The housing within the study area is characterized by urban, rural residential, and rural farming. Table 3.9-3, “Occupancy Rates in the Vicinity of the Study Area,” shows the housing data for the County and study area for 2000. The County had a total of 1,250,231 housing units, of which 1,123,866 (89.8%) were occupied. MAG projects that the County will have approximately 1,490,212 housing units by the year 2010, and approximately 1,824,979 by 2020. On the local level, MAG predicts that the City will have approximately 604,938 housing units by 2010, and approximately 701,091 housing units by 2020 (MAG, 1997).

Table 3.9-3. Occupancy Rates in the Vicinity of the Study Area

Jurisdiction Housing Units Households Occupancy Maricopa County 1,250,231 1,123,866 89.8% Study Area 12,448 11,504 92.4% Percent of County Total 1.0% 1.0% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000

Table 3.9-4, “Housing-Unit Type and Housing-Unit Median Value in the Vicinity of the Study Area,” shows that in 1990, 7,620 people (40.8% of the total population of the study area) resided in urban areas in the study area, while 3,417 people (31%) lived in rural areas (185 residing on farms and 3,232 on non-farmland). In the County, approximately 921,947 people (96.8% of the total population of the County) lived in urban areas, and approximately 30,352 people (3.2%) lived in rural areas. The housing units within the study area had a median value of $50,055.

Table 3.9-4. Housing-Unit Type and Median Value in the Vicinity of the Study Area

Rural Urban Urban Non- Median Unit Value Farm Inside Outside Farm Maricopa County 750 29,603 896,344 25,603 $85,300 Study Area 185 3,232 7,620 0 $50,055 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990

Rio Salado Oeste 3-64 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement 3.9.2.4 Employment

According to the Arizona Department of Economic Security, approximately 1,553,900 people were employed in Maricopa County in 2000, with employment expected to continue to grow in the region. Employment opportunities in the Phoenix-Mesa metropolitan area are expected to expand to 2,086,543 jobs by 2008. This would represent an 8-year increase of 532,643 jobs (2000–2008). In January 2002, the total civilian labor force in the County was 1,586,600, of which 1,501,000 were employed.

Table 3.9-5, “Industry Employment in Maricopa County, January 2002,” shows 1,528,500 people are currently employed in the County (Arizona Department of Economic Security, 2002), a slight decrease from two years before.

Table 3.9-5. Industry Employment in Maricopa County, January 2002

Employment Jobs Total Civilian Labor Force 1,586,600 Total Unemployment 85,600 Total Employment 1,501,000 Non-Farm Employment 1,528,500 Goods Producing 258,900 Mining and Quarrying 1,000 Construction 112,500 Manufacturing 145,400 Service Producing 1,269,600 Transportation, Communication, and 82,200 Public Utilities Trade 374,400 Financial, Insurance, and Real Estate 125,300 Government Federal 19,700 State and Local 171,300 Source: Arizona Department of Economic Security, 2002 * Adjusted to the Current Population Survey (CPS 2002) to reflect place of residence. BENCHMARK YEAR 2001 QUARTER 1

In Maricopa County, 1,877,045 people are expected to be employed by the year 2010, and 2,212,889 people are expected to be employed by 2020. Although employment predictions are not available specifically for the study area, the City of Phoenix is expected to have 821,325 persons employed by 2010 and 873,975 people employed by 2020 (MAG, 1997).

Rio Salado Oeste 3-65 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.9.2.5 Income

Table 3.9-6, “Median Household Income in the Vicinity of the Study Area,” shows median household income for residents within Maricopa County and the study area for the year 1990. In 1990, the median household income for the County was $30,797, whereas for the median household income for the study area was substantially less, averaging $19,493 (U.S. Census Bureau, 1990).

Table 3.9-6. Median Household Income in the Vicinity of the Study Area

Jurisdiction Median Income Amount Maricopa County $45,358 Study Area $27,847 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000

3.9.3 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

In 1994, the President of the United States issued Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income Populations. The objectives of the executive order include developing federal agency implementation strategies, identifying minority and low-income populations where proposed federal actions could have disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects, and encouraging the participation of minority and low-income populations in the NEPA process. There are two types of data that must be reviewed to evaluate environmental justice effects: minority populations and income levels. Minority data for census tracts located within the study area were obtained from the recent 2000 census. Countywide statistics were reviewed to determine the percentage of the population not classified as Caucasian and the percentage classified as Hispanic. Using the county average for comparison, each of the census tracts in the study area was evaluated to determine whether the minority and/or Hispanic population percentages were greater than the county average. If a census tract percentage exceeded the county average, the tract was evaluated for environmental justice effects based on its minority population.

3.10 TRANSPORTATION

3.10.1 REGIONAL PLANNING

As the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Maricopa region, the Maricopa Association of Governments plans and finances the regional transportation system. The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) provides a broad vision for the regional transportation system for the next two decades, addressing freeways and other highways, streets, transit, airports, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.

Rio Salado Oeste 3-66 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement 3.10.2 FREEWAYS AND SURFACE STREETS

The dominant mode of transportation in the Rio Salado Oeste study area is the automobile. Interstate Highway 10 (I-10) services Phoenix from the east and west, while Interstate 17 (I-17) brings travelers to and from Flagstaff, 130 miles to the north. These interstate highways are connected by an extensive network of limited access freeways, including State Routes 51, 101, 202 and 303. In addition to the interstate highways, State Highways 60, 85 and 87 are major transportation routes.

Major surface streets are generally laid out in north-south and east-west directions at one mile intervals, though this pattern is interrupted by topography and restrictive land uses (such as airports) in some areas. Nearly all local streets and arterials near the Rio Salado Oeste study area are part of this north-south, east-west grid roadway network. Four local roadways cross the Salt River in the study area: 19th, 35th, and 51st Avenues (bridges) and 67th Avenue (at-grade crossing). All of these major surface arterials streets have interchanges with interstate 10 three to four miles north of the Salt River.

3.10.3 MASS TRANSIT

Valley Metro provides transportation services for the greater metropolitan area, including rideshare services and a large fleet of public transit buses. The area’s first light rail line is expected to begin providing service between Phoenix, Tempe, and Mesa in 2008, with future extensions scheduled through 2025 (MAG, 2006)

3.10.4 AIRPORTS

Phoenix owns and operates three airports, Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (Sky Harbor), Phoenix Deer Valley Airport and Phoenix Goodyear Airport. Sky Harbor is served by 23 airlines which provide nonstop service from Phoenix to 89 cities in the United States and 17 cities in Canada, Mexico, and Europe (City of Phoenix, 2006). With more than 1,700 daily arrivals and departures, and 36 million passengers annually, Sky Harbor is the fifth busiest airport in the word (Sky Harbor Coalition, 2006). The Rio Salado Oeste study area is located approximately five miles west of Sky Harbor. Deer Valley Airport and Goodyear Airport are general aviation reliever airports for Phoenix Sky Harbor. Luke Air Force Base, while not a public airport, is a major consideration in airspace planning in the Phoenix area.

3.10.5 RAILROADS

The Phoenix area is serviced by two major railroads, Union Pacific and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway. These rail lines are currently used for freight. The Maricopa Association of Governments is studying the feasibility of using these freight lines as the basis for a regional commuter network (MAG, 2006). No rail lines cross the Salt River in the study area.

Rio Salado Oeste 3-67 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement 3.10.6 REGULATORY SETTING

The Rio Salado Oeste project could potentially affect local roadway conditions, access, and through traffic flow. It may be necessary to obtain encroachment permits or similar legal agreements from the respective public agencies responsible for the numerous roadways through the study area. Such permits would be needed for any location where an activity would occur physically within the right-of-way of a public road. The regulatory setting of the transportation network in the area is guided by numerous governmental and political jurisdictions, which would be responsible for issuing such permits. Throughout the study area, these agencies include the City of Phoenix, the Maricopa County Department of Transportation, and the Federal Aviation Administration. ADOT has jurisdiction over activities occurring on or affecting I-10 and I-17 near the study area.

3.11 LAND USE

3.11.1 INTRODUCTION

This section describes the existing land uses and recreational opportunities in the vicinity of the Rio Salado Oeste study area. A discussion of the various planning organizations with jurisdiction in the area is provided, along with information on the regulatory setting for future development projects in the area.

3.11.2 LAND USE IN THE PROJECT STUDY AREA

Based upon the City of Phoenix General Plan (revised February, 2001), most of the land area on the north side of the Salt River between 19th Avenue and 59th Avenue is zoned as industrial, with some high-density residential between 43rd Avenue and 60th Avenue. From 60th Avenue to 83rd Avenue, the primary land use is low-density residential. South of the Salt River, there is some land between 19th Avenue and 35th Avenue zoned as commercial. Otherwise, the prevailing land use designation is low- to medium-density residential.

Estrella Village and Laveen Village are the two primary planning areas that lie adjacent to the Salt River between 19th Avenue and 83rd Avenue. Estrella Village is characterized by an ample supply of undeveloped land, large parcels, natural and scenic amenities, and excellent transportation access. As noted on the City of Phoenix web site, the village also poses unique challenges, given the isolation of its existing residential neighborhoods and the extensive industrial activities that have developed over the years. Approximately 62 percent of the Village is undeveloped, either vacant or with agricultural uses. However, there are 21 residential developments in various phases of approval and development. Over 8,000 new single-family housing units were approved in this area in 1999 alone.

The Laveen Village contains largely undeveloped and agricultural properties. Primary agricultural crops grown in the area include cotton, citrus, and corn. The area has been valued by farmers, equestrians, and those looking for solitude and mountain access. However, development pressures have increased in this area due to its proximity (about seven miles) to downtown. This pressure is expected to increase along with access to the future South Mountain

Rio Salado Oeste 3-68 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement Loop transportation corridor. There are 12 residential developments in various phases of approval and development in the Laveen Village area, which is anticipated to result in a doubling of population over the next decade.

The South Mountain planning area is also primarily composed of vacant land, agriculture, and low-density residential uses. These categories, along with open space, represent over 85 percent of the space in this planning area (see Figure 3.11-1).

3.11.3 REAL ESTATE

The majority of the land within the project area is privately owned. Within the floodplain, or the area where restoration measures would be proposed, this ownership includes sand and gravel companies, the State of Arizona, Maricopa County, and the City of Phoenix. The City of Phoenix currently owns approximately 511 acres in the project area and has a Recreation and Public Purposes Lease on an additional 159 acres of Bureau of Land Management property. A general summary of land ownership within the 100-year floodplain is presented in Table 3.11-1. Refer to the Feasibility Report, Appendix G, Economic Evaluation, for more details.

Table 3.11-1. Property Ownership within the Study Area (100-Year Floodplain)

Ownership Acres City of Phoenix 511 Maricopa County 118 State of Arizona 261 Federal 190 Private 2094 Total 3174

3.11.4 NEARBY RECREATION RESOURCES

Arizonans place high importance on the State’s outdoor recreation resources. In the 1994 Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan survey, 94 percent of respondents stated that parks and recreation areas are important to their everyday lifestyles. With the exception of the recently opened Rio Salado Phoenix project (Section 5.1.5), the greater Phoenix area does not have any significant riparian habitat areas with supporting recreation facilities. The major existing parks in the area consist primarily of desert mountain preserves, which do not contain the types of habitat that could be supported in the study area. For purposes of this analysis, the market area will be defined as the greater Phoenix metropolitan area, which would include Maricopa and Pinal Counties. However, it is likely that many visitors would be drawn from even greater distances.

Rio Salado Oeste 3-69 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement 3.11.5 REGULATORY SETTING

Although the proposed project is being undertaken by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the State, County, City and the Gila River Indian Community have jurisdiction over respective planning and development decisions in the study area. Regulatory requirements and future growth policies for these organizations are identified in several different planning documents. The regulatory setting for these organizations is presented below.

3.11.5.1 State of Arizona

In recent years, the State of Arizona adopted growth management legislation, known as “Growing Smarter” and “Growing Smarter Plus,” in response to concerns about the rates of population growth in communities throughout the state. This legislation requires all cities in Arizona to update their General Plans. These laws were enacted to improve the way cities plan for future growth, expansion, and redevelopment by reforming local planning and zoning procedures, increasing citizen participation in growth and planning issues, and adjusting State Land Trust policies to preserve open space and enhance conservation.

City and county plans are required to include new elements and/or modify existing elements. Each municipality must coordinate their plan with other plans in the region. The Growing Smarter Act mandates five new elements to be added to municipal plans: open space, growth areas, environmental planning, cost of development, and water resources.

The State Land Department is also required to prepare a conceptual land use plan, with an annual five-year disposition or development plan for all trust lands located in urban areas. It must identify lands projected for sale, lease, reclassification, or rezoning over each period. The 2000 legislation requires that voters ratify new community plans at least once every ten years. If a proposed new plan fails to receive a sufficient number of votes, the existing plan remains in effect. Minor amendments to an existing plan must be approved by the City Council. During the 2002 legislative session, HB 2601 was introduced to address issues with the Growing Smarter legislation that were identified by stakeholders statewide through the efforts of the Growing Smarter Oversight Council. As proposed, the bill includes the following provisions, among others:

• extends the deadline for the adoption of updated General or Comprehensive Plans, • clarifies language regarding the water resources element, and • revises the requirements for the 60-day review period.

3.11.5.2 Maricopa County

Portions of the study area are within unincorporated areas of the County and are governed by county planning and development activities. The vast size of the County has dictated a sub- regional approach to comprehensive planning in the County during the last 20 years (Maricopa County, 1997). A series of land use plans for the area have been developed in a program to plan for unincorporated areas. Within the study area, these plans include the

Rio Salado Oeste 3-70 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan, Estrella Planning Area land use plan, and the Laveen Planning Area land use plan. Each of these plans is briefly discussed below.

3.11.5.2.1 Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan

As required by state law, Maricopa County prepared a comprehensive plan “to conserve the natural resources of the County, to ensure efficient expenditure of public funds, and to promote the health, safety, convenience, and general welfare of the public” (Maricopa County, 1997). The plan provides a guide for decisions made by the planning and zoning commission and the board of supervisors concerning growth and development. The County lands within the study area are designated as a “General Plan Development Area” on the County’s land use map. These areas are defined as unincorporated areas that are likely to be annexed by a city or town in the future and are included in an adopted municipal general plan. As is the case within the study area, these areas often include many of the unincorporated lands that are either surrounded by a jurisdiction or surrounded by a strip of annexation. The County will take into consideration the general plans of municipalities within these areas to guide decision making under the following circumstances: 1) the municipal plan has been updated in the previous five years; and 2) the municipality can demonstrate that residents, property owners, and improvement districts from the unincorporated areas in the specific planning area have been involved in the planning process (Maricopa County, 1997). The City of Phoenix General Plan meets these criteria and is discussed later in this chapter.

The Salt River is identified as “Proposed Open Space” on the land use map. This designation recognizes that natural resources and open spaces are important to the quality of life in the county and, if acquired, are intended to be planned and managed to protect, maintain, and enhance their intrinsic value for recreational, aesthetic, and biological purposes. Additionally, the General Plan provides that public access should be protected and preservation shall be encouraged. When combined with Dedicated Open Space lands, the Proposed Open Spaces are intended to establish an interconnected system of protected natural open spaces, corresponding to regionally significant mountains, rivers, washes, upland desert, and cultural resources in unincorporated areas of the County (Maricopa County, 1997).

The County’s size and environmental diversity is greater than some U.S. states, and it provides a complex natural ecosystem. As part of the overriding vision for the County, protection of the unique desert environments is among the top priorities. The Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan focuses on maintaining and improving the physical environment, natural resource conservation, and other environmental considerations. Additionally, the plan recognizes the importance of creating, improving, and conserving natural habitat and open space to increase biological diversity. River and wash policies include discouraging development within 100-year floodplains, maximizing wildlife habitat and native vegetation along waterways, and developing management principles to protect the natural riparian habitat of the region (Maricopa County, 1997).

Rio Salado Oeste 3-71 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement 3.11.5.2.2 City of Phoenix

The City of Phoenix General Plan (City of Phoenix, 2001b) regulates planning and development activities within incorporated areas of the city in the vicinity of the study area. The General Plan considers areas currently outside the jurisdictional political boundaries (unincorporated county lands) for potential future annexation. Through goals, policies and recommendations, the General Plan provides a short- (within the next 10 years) and long-range (10 to 20 years) comprehensive direction for the growth, conservation, and redevelopment of all physical aspects of the city. The mission of the General Plan is to help achieve the City’s vision by preserving the culture, heritage, and natural and human-made environment. The General Plan also acknowledges that preserved natural areas provide visual and emotional relief from day-to-day stresses of life in the urban setting, recreation, and habitat for native flora and fauna. Mountains and wash terrain features define these major natural areas (City of Phoenix, 2001b). As part of the strategic growth concepts adopted by the City, the Estrella and Laveen areas are two of the major target growth areas identified in the General Plan, and are within the study area. The Rio Montana Plan (2000), prepared for the eastern portion of Laveen, identifies “encouraging development and redevelopment along the Rio Salado that will be compatible with the Rio Salado Habitat Restoration Project” as one of the major issues that is unique to the area. The Estrella Plan (1999) identifies “encouraging development along Rio Salado that will be compatible with the new residential character village” as one of the major issues that is unique within the area (City of Phoenix, 2001b).

3.12 RECREATION

3.12.1 INTRODUCTION

This section presents the existing recreational opportunities in the vicinity of the Rio Salado Oeste study area. A discussion of the planning organizations with jurisdiction in the area is provided, along with information on the regulatory environment guiding recreational facilities in the area. Several local government agencies have jurisdiction over recreational facilities in the area. Although the majority of the study area lies within the City of Phoenix, a substantial portion lies within unincorporated Maricopa County. The Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) has jurisdiction over the far southwestern corner of the study area.

South Mountain Park is the largest nearby recreation area. South Mountain Park is located about three miles south of the Salt River and extends from about 48th Street on the east to 43rd Avenue on the west - a distance of over ten miles. The park is bounded on the north by Baseline Road and on the south by Chandler Boulevard, and is over three miles wide in some places. It encompasses about 17,000 acres of desert mountain landscape and is the largest municipal park in the United States. It contains an activity complex, hiking and riding trails (extending over 40 miles), an interpretive center, lookouts, ramadas, picnic areas, and restrooms.

The Estrella Mountains Regional Park is located southwest of the study area within the Cities of Avondale and Goodyear. The 19,840-acre park features 65 acres of grass with ten covered ramadas, picnic tables, grills, restrooms, playground equipment, two lighted ballfields, a rodeo arena, and an 18-hole privately operated golf course. In addition to the developed recreational

Rio Salado Oeste 3-72 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement facilities, the park offers an extensive natural desert landscape for passive recreation. More than 33 miles of trails for hiking, mountain biking, and horseback riding are available for use.

Maricopa County provides a countywide system of trails, the primary component of which is the Sun Circle Trail. The Sun Circle Trail, when completed, will encircle the Phoenix metropolitan area (Maricopa County, 1992). This trail will provide opportunities for hiking, horseback riding, and bicycling. The existing recreational environment is provided for the respective government jurisdictions below.

3.12.2 CITY OF PHOENIX

The Phoenix Parks and Recreation Department operates more than 200 parks throughout the City, including six desert-mountain parks and 132 urban parks. The Department also administers almost 26,000 acres of desert parks and preserves within the city limits and more than 100 miles of Sonoran Desert trails (City of Phoenix, 2001a). In addition to facilities and programs offered on city-owned land, the recreation needs of the community are met in part by joint use of school facilities, such as lighted fields and school buildings. Recreational facilities within the City also include swimming pools, special facilities (such as historic sites, stadiums, and gardens), urban parks (small, pedestrian-oriented green open spaces within dense urban areas), and the West Valley Recreation Corridor (the longest recreation corridor in the Valley, extending from Lake Pleasant to Avondale along Agua Fria River and New River). In the study area, the existing streambed consists primarily of a dry wash with no recreational facilities or public access for recreation. The only improved recreation area adjacent to the Salt River in the Phoenix area is the 14-acre Rio Salado Park, which is located outside the study area at 12th Street and Elwood.

3.12.2.1 Rio Salado Phoenix Project

The Rio Salado Project is a planned recreational and habitat restoration project that is in the process of restoring the Salt River to a more natural state. It includes construction of a low-flow channel in the river bottom, and establishment of open water, wetland marsh, cottonwood/willow, open edges, and mesquite habitat on the river bottom and over banks. The project includes approximately 595-acres of restoration and 10-miles of a recreation multi-use path. Additional recreational elements include scenic overlooks, interpretive centers, gathering areas, parking, restrooms, and shade structures. Activities along the project area include bird watching, hiking, biking, and equestrian uses, wildlife observation, and fishing. The project is located immediately upstream from the project study area, and opened for public use in November, 2005.

3.12.2.3 Tres Rios Project

The Tres Rios project extends west from the 91st Avenue wastewater treatment plant to the confluence of Gila and Agua Fria Rivers. The selected plan includes a 6-mile flood control levee, a 184-acre regulating wetland that would equalize diurnal variations in discharges from the 91st Avenue treatment plant, a 300-million gallon per day pump station to convey the flow from the treatment plant to the regulating wetland, 128-acres of wetland along the north bank of the Salt River, a pipeline in the overbank wetland that would lead to 38-acres of riparian

Rio Salado Oeste 3-73 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement corridor, 134-acres of open water marsh, grading the Salt River to convey surface water to supply 69-acres of riparian habitat, and a dewatering well from the treatment plant that will deliver enough water to support about 206 acres of open water marsh and about 16 acres of riparian corridor on the south bank of the Salt River. In all, approximately 775 acres of habitat will be restored and an 11-mile recreation path will be created. Construction on the levee began in 2005 and scheduled for completion in 2008.

3.12.3 GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY (GRIC)

No recreational facilities or parks that fall within the jurisdiction of GRIC were observed within the study area.

3.12.4 REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT

Although the proposed project is being undertaken by the Corps and the City of Phoenix, Maricopa County has jurisdiction over respective planning and development decisions in some portions of the study area. Because three separate jurisdictions have authority over planning and development in the study area, there are a multitude of regulations within the various planning documents.

3.12.4.1 Maricopa County

Portions of the study area are within unincorporated Maricopa County. The Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan is divided into a series of land use plans for the area. Plans relative to the Oeste Project include the Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan, the Estrella Planning Area Land Use Plan, and the Laveen Planning Area Land Use Plan. Goals and policies related to recreation facilities are discussed for each plan below (Maricopa County, 1997).

3.12.4.2 Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan

The Comprehensive Plan seeks to establish a network of protected open spaces that correspond to regionally significant mountains, rivers, washes, and upland deserts. Parks and recreation facilities are a form of secured open space that provide the foundation of a coordinated outdoor recreation system and contribute to the County’s quality of life. Existing publicly owned recreation areas include neighborhood and community parks, Maricopa County regional parks (the largest county park system in the country), State Game and Fish lands, and a municipal mountain preserve. These lands provide recreational opportunities within or near urbanized areas.

The Comprehensive Plan recommends acquisition of open space to meet the passive and active recreation needs of the region’s population. Dedicated open space areas are those areas that are under public ownership (except state trust land) that have unique environmental and physical qualities. These areas include mountains and foothills, rivers and washes, canals, significant desert vegetation, wildlife habitat, and cultural resources. Within Maricopa County, dedicated open space exists in the form of regional parks, wilderness areas, wildlife areas, and the Tonto National Forest. This dedicated open space currently comprises approximately 2,000 square

Rio Salado Oeste 3-74 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement miles, with another 650 square miles of proposed open space in the unincorporated areas of the county. Open space provides recreation and visual resources for the residents of Maricopa County.

3.13 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY

3.13.1 INTRODUCTION

This section describes the existing environmental conditions in the vicinity of the Rio Salado Oeste study area relating to public health and safety.

3.13.2 GENERAL PROJECT SETTING

The Salt River is a terraced, low-gradient river. Historically, its flow has been directed by development, dating back to Native American use of the river for irrigation. Presently, the Salt River is a mostly dry riverbed whose flow is dependent on large storm events, treatment plant releases, or upstream dam releases. Depth to groundwater ranges from 70 feet below land surface near 19th Avenue to 40 feet below land surface near 83rd Avenue. The direction of flow is highly variable; however, groundwater flow is generally to the west (Arizona Department of Water Resources, 1992). Soil types in the Salt River are porous sands, gravel, and rounded cobbles.

The primary modern use of the Salt River is for extreme event flood damage reduction. The land uses in the vicinity of the Salt River between 19th Avenue and 83rd Avenue are sand and gravel quarries, automotive scrap yards, commercial developments, and residential developments on the south side of the river, and residential developments, sand and gravel quarries, and landfills on the north side of the river. The soils and water in the riverbeds are potentially subject to contamination from several sources, including discharge from stormwater systems that may carry metals, grease, and oils of minimal toxicity; overland flows that may transmit sediment and fertilizers; leachate from landfills within the riverbed; and point-source dumping by the general public. The City of Phoenix collects and discharges untreated stormwater from its streets and gutters into Salt River. The Salt River Project (SRP) releases water into storm drains and farmers release irrigation return into Salt River (Salisbury, pers. comm.). City ordinances do not allow gutters and storm sewers to be used for any purpose other than stormwater. EPA issued a permit to the City for this activity. According to City of Phoenix staff, stormwater is tested by the Flood Control District of Maricopa County, while dry weather runoff is tested by the City. Phoenix has cameras installed in storm drains to monitor for illegal sources of runoff.

The 23rd Avenue Phoenix wastewater treatment plant is located just south of Lower Buckeye Road. Phoenix treats and releases this municipal wastewater into Salt River under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued by the EPA and an Aquifer Protection Permit issued by ADEQ. Under the NPDES permit, Phoenix must submit an annual report with analytical results of sampling (Karnes, pers. comm.). The 2001 annual report indicates that the plant had no discharges that violated applicable EPA or local standards (Hollender, pers. comm.).

Rio Salado Oeste 3-75 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement 3.13.3 REGULATORY SETTING

The principal federal regulatory agency for hazardous waste is the EPA. In Arizona, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) is responsible for implementing federal regulations throughout the state. Federal law requires state regulations to be at least as stringent as federal regulations.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is the primary federal agency responsible for worker safety in the handling and use of chemicals in the workplace. The employer is required to monitor worker exposure to listed hazardous substances and notify workers of exposure. OSHA regulations specify requirements for employee training, availability of safety equipment, accident-prevention programs and hazardous substance exposure warnings.

3.13.4 HAZARDOUS, TOXIC AND RADIOACTIVE WASTE (HTRW)

The presence of Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Wastes (HTRW) within the study area was evaluated for the study. Because of the size of the study area, approximately 23.5 square miles total, a typical Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was not feasible. Consequently, a Modified Phase I ESA was determined to be most appropriate for the project. The basic difference is that a site reconnaissance of every property within the project area was not conducted. The Modified Phase I ESA was conducted to review past and current land use practices along the site corridor to identify areas of known or suspected contamination that may environmentally impact the subject property.

The site corridor is defined as the neighboring properties and facilities along the Salt River within an approximate distance of one mile north and south of the river’s centerline, the nature of which may adversely affect or have affected environmental conditions at the site due to the presence and/or release of hazardous substances or petroleum products to the environment. URS completed the assessment under contract to the City of Phoenix (URS, 2002).

The Modified Phase I ESA was accomplished by, and limited to, a visual reconnaissance of the site from existing rights-of-way and public areas, a drive-by survey of the site corridor (or vicinity), a review of publicly available records (including aerial photographs), and a review of pertinent documentation presently and readily available from the client and/or through URS’ standard resources. The following activities were conducted in accomplishing the Modified Phase I ESA:

• Review of aerial photographs. • Review and interpretation of available archival topographic maps, historical land use maps of the site for information regarding historical site land use that could have involved the manufacture, generation, use, storage and/or disposal of hazardous substances. • Review of the following state and federal agency lists of known or potential hazardous waste sites, and sites currently under investigation for potential environmental violations as prescribed by the American Society for Testing and Materials. All databases were

Rio Salado Oeste 3-76 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement searched for areas approximately one mile from the Salt River centerline to include the project implementation area (or buffer area):

Federal National Priorities List (NPL) site list Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Information System (CERCLIS) list Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) CORRACTS TSD facilities list Federal RCRA non-Corrective Action Report (CORRACTS) Treatment, Storage, and Disposal (TSD) facilities list Federal RCRA generators list Federal Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) list State lists of hazardous waste sites identified for investigation or remediation: State-equivalent NPL State-equivalent CERCLIS State landfill and/or solid waste disposal site lists State Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) lists State-registered Underground Storage Tank (UST) lists

• Review of previous environmental reports conducted within or relating to the Rio Salado Oeste study area.

• Performance of an onsite visual reconnaissance of the subject property and the area within 1-mile of the Salt River centerline in each direction to make visual observations of existing site conditions, activities, and types of land use and businesses within the project corridor area.

Sites having possible HTRW concerns include Arizona Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund (WQARF)/National Priority List (NPL, or Superfund) sites, landfills, LUSTs, other sites included on lists of known or potential hazardous waste sites, and sites currently under investigation for potential environmental violations. Areas of groundwater quality concern are summarized in the Modified Phase I ESA prepared by URS (2002), and are depicted on Figure 3.3-2. The entire assessment is included as Appendix F to the Feasibility Report. Groundwater quality concerns are also addressed in Appendix D: Groundwater Quality and Hydrogeology Report attached to the Feasibility Report.

Sites identified with possible HTRW concerns are, for the most part, located outside the 100-year floodplain (Figure 3.3-2). Project features would be located almost entirely within the 100-year floodplain, and would be designed to avoid the known HTRW sites. In accordance with Engineer Regulation 1165-2-132, the Corps would not participate in clean up of materials regulated by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) or by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

Rio Salado Oeste 3-77 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement CHAPTER 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES This section forms the scientific and analytic basis for the comparisons of alternatives. It describes the environmental effects associated with the No-Action alternative and each of the action alternatives. It explains the approach and methodology used to perform the analysis and the results of the analysis, both indirect and direct. The environmental effects are described separately for each resource area and alternative. Mitigation measures are provided for impacts that are substantial and adverse. While some short-term impacts would occur as a result of project construction and temporary site disturbance, the long-term impacts are expected to be beneficial.

4.1 TOPOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGY

4.1.1 APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

Impacts involving topography and geology in or near the project area focus on how project- related construction activities and proposed site improvements may impact the soil and erosion potential. The study area is characterized by a group of soils that are often sandy to gravelly, may include lenses of finer particles, and are often redistributed by water flows associated with nearby active channels. Borrow materials are abundant and currently being utilized in the local area. Two stone borrow sites have been identified as sources of construction material and may be available for potential use by a contractor.

Other evaluated impacts include changes to the surface and/or groundwater hydrogeology. The evaluation classified the hydrogeologic units, depths, and materials composition. The potential significance for impacts was based on past field experience with similar restoration projects.

As discussed in Section 7.1 of the Geotechnical Evaluation, Appendix E of the Feasibility Report, no known active faults are known to occur on or near the project site therefore no direct impacts, related to surface rupture, are anticipated. Seismic activity is very low in the region of the proposed project. Seismic impacts related to ground motion are not anticipated. In addition, subsidence in the project area has not occurred in the past and there is very little potential for subsidence to occur in the future. Therefore, subsidence is not projected to influence design or operation of the Rio Salado Oeste project

4.1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

4.1.2.1 No-Action Alternative

Under the No-Action Alternative, no impacts would occur related to topography and geology. Conditions along the river channel are expected to remain essentially the same as current conditions. Landforms would remain approximately the same though large-scale flood events will continue to change the floodplain. Areas within the channel that are currently subject to

Rio Salado Oeste 4-1 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement erosion will continue to erode at current rates. The minor recharge sources-such as seepage from canals and irrigated land, underflow along major streams, and rainfall will most likely remain the most significant source for subflow replenishment. Additionally, ongoing human encroachment and gravel mining will continue to adversely affect the river channel profile and planform. In the short-term, on-going gravel mining within the project are will cause upstream headcutting and sediment trapping within the gravel pits Sediment trapping would lead to a reduction in downstream sediment transport would lead to associated downstream channel bed and bank erosion. Long-term impacts could include an increase in the potential for wind-related soil erosion from continued decreased water availability. This could result in a substantial decrease in vegetative cover over time.

4.1.2.2 Alternatives 2, 4, 5, 5A, and 5B

4.1.2.2.1 Impact: Minor Geomorphologic Changes in River Channel

Activities related to topography and geology under these alternatives include the modification of existing stormwater outfall areas to improve retention and water spreading and modification and/or restructuring of the primary conveyance channel to a more natural state by grading and terracing the river corridor from 19th Avenue to 83rd Avenue. These procedures would involve several forms of reshaping, including excavation and grading. All Alternatives, with the exception of Alternative 2, would add supplemental effluent and clay fill material, which would be used to restore increasing amounts of habitat, including in-channel wetlands. Moreover, Alternatives 5A and 5B would add significant amounts of fill material to the gravel pits at 27th and 37th Avenues to restore them to the floodplain.

Under all of the Alternatives, the geomorphologic character of the existing landscape would be permanently altered due to the many reshaping procedures planned for the project. River bottom areas would undergo surface reshaping, which includes moving soil to fill depressions or removing unwanted mounds. In addition, soils would be imported to various areas to provide the necessary substrate for new vegetation. Clay, mixed gravel, and cobble layers would be placed in areas of proposed wetland habitats in Alternatives 4, 5, 5A, and 5B.

Implementation of the project would no doubt require moving a significant amount of earth, regrading of large areas, and addition of new materials. However, the impact to the hydrogeology would be less than significant because the structure and function of the existing alluvial materials and stratification described in the Geotechnical Evaluation, Appendix E, would remain intact, with the possible exception of higher than existing levels of clay where new emergent wetlands are proposed. The soil erosion loss potential would likely be reduced with terracing and regrading, except for the initial construction-related effects.

Mitigation Measure: No mitigation required.

4.1.2.2.2 Impact: Beneficial Changes to River Channel

All of the Alternatives would decrease the potential for soil loss through regrading and terracing of the primary conveyance channel to a more natural state, and through planting new vegetation.

Rio Salado Oeste 4-2 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Alternatives 4, 5, 5A, and 5B have the potential to restore historically present surface flow in some areas through the addition of supplemental effluent and added clay fill material, both of which would be used to restore increasing amounts of habitat, including in-channel wetlands.

Alternatives 5A and 5B would add significant amounts of fill material to the gravel pits at 27th and 37th Avenues to restore them to the floodplain. This would decrease the potential for those gravel pits to trap sediments that would otherwise flow downstream.

These are all considered beneficial effects.

Mitigation Measure: No mitigation required.

4.2 HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES

4.2.1 APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

This section describes the impacts of the various alternatives to hydrology and water resources within the study area. These impacts were determined through inspection of the plans for each alternative and a review of the construction and restoration aspects of each alternative.

Impacts on surface hydrology were evaluated to determine whether the implementation of the alternative would result in substantial alteration of watercourses and in stream channels. Additionally, impacts were analyzed to determine if the alternative would exacerbate flooding in currently flood-prone areas or create new potential for flooding or flood damage. A sedimentation analysis was completed to determine the impacts of the potential changes in the shape and grading of the streambed. Groundwater hydrological impacts were analyzed to determine whether an alternative would result in a substantial loss or change in groundwater resources within the area.

4.2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

4.2.2.1 No-Action Alternative

Under the No-Action Alternative, existing flooding and flood damage will continue at approximately the same level of magnitude and frequency. Water quality is expected to decline slightly as the watershed continues to urbanize. Erosion and sedimentation processes would continue at current rates and degrees of magnitude.

4.2.2.2 Alternatives 2, 4, 5, 5A, and 5B

4.2.2.2.1 Impact: Changes in the 100-year Water Surface Elevations

Channel reshaping and vegetation planting activities proposed under all of the alternatives has the potential to increase 100-year surface elevations and to increase the potential for flooding in

Rio Salado Oeste 4-3 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement the project area. As a part of the project planning process, the Corps conducted modeling (HEC- RAS) to analyze changes in hydraulic conditions associated with implementation of the project alternatives, beginning with the alternative that had the most potential to increase the 100-year surface elevation, Alternative 5A. This alternative did not significantly increase the flood damages in the project area. Thus, the remaining Alternatives, 2, 4, 5, and 5B would not significantly increase flood damages either.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.

4.2.2.2.2 Impact: Potential Changes in Groundwater Depths

Sediments within the Salt River are divided into four units. Rio Salado Oeste construction will occur only at the upper most unit of the basin, the Upper Alluvial Unit (UAU). This unit runs 300-400 feet deep. In the past, the UAU was the primary source of groundwater in the valley, but because of lower water levels (decreased groundwater elevations) and large areas of poor quality water, only about one fourth of groundwater pumped in the valley is from the UAU. Important sources of recharges to groundwater in the valley include infiltration of Salt River flows, mountain recharge along the McDowell and Superstition Mountains, percolation of excess irrigation water, and canal seepage.

Within project implementation area, static water level is relatively shallow, ranging from 20 to 50 feet below ground surface within the Salt River channel to 60 to 80 feet below ground surface north and south of the river. Fluctuations in static water level can be as much as 20 to 30 feet on an annual basis due to agriculture pumping demands, and have declined as much as 25 feet in the last five years (Dames & Moore, 1991; Parsons Engineering Science, 2001). Contributing factors that may cause the fluctuations are water discharge from the 35th Avenue water treatment plant outfall during winter months that produces groundwater mounding, and related radial flow during periods of discharge and basin-wide groundwater pumping and stormwater runoff into the Salt River. . In general the selected wells show a consistent water level decline without radical changes in gradient direction. Therefore, while the groundwater elevation has declined approximately 10 to 20 feet since 1997, the current contours are likely to be similar to the 1997 contours (URS, 2002).

Alternative 2 should not have any impacts on changes in groundwater elevation since it does not add water sources to the project implementation area. Alternatives 4, 5, 5A and 5B, however, add effluent to the project area in order to create additional riparian habitat. The additional water resources have the potential to increase groundwater elevation, but to insignificant levels.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.

4.2.2.2.3 Impact: Beneficial Changes in Sedimentation

Based on HEC-RAS modeling, the No-Action alternative would result in a scour hole downstream of the 35th Avenue Bridge within 10-years time. Implementation of all of the alternatives would include a grade control structure in the area to prevent the development of this

Rio Salado Oeste 4-4 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement scour hole. Also, all of the alternatives would create a more homogenous riverbed slope that would transport sediment more effectively and efficiently than the No-Action alternative.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.

4.3 WATER QUALITY

4.3.1 APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

This section describes the impacts of the various alternatives to water quality within the study area. These impacts were determined through inspection of the plans for each alternative and a review of the construction and restoration aspects of each alternative. The impacts were evaluated to determine whether construction or operation of an alternative would result in degradation of existing or future water quality, resulting in the potential for violations of existing water quality standards. The analysis focuses on turbidity and sedimentation associated with construction and restoration activities and the potential for water quality impacts caused by accidental spills of fuels or solvents during construction. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be prepared for the recommended plan, and additional water quality compliance permits for project construction would be obtained in coordination and consultation with the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ).

The project alternatives must also comply with Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines of the Clean Water Act of 1977 which state, “no discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as the alternative does not have significant adverse environmental considerations.”

4.3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

4.3.2.1 No-Action Alternative

Under the No-Action Alternative no construction would take place and thus, would not create any adverse temporary effects to water quality. Water quality is expected to decline slightly as the watershed continues to urbanize. Erosion and sedimentation processes would continue at current rates and degrees of magnitude.

4.3.2.2 Alternatives 2, 4, 5, 5A and 5B

4.3.2.2.1 Impact: Temporary Adverse Effects on Water Quality during Project Construction

Project construction and restoration activities proposed under this alternative include grading, site preparation for vegetation planting, irrigation system establishment, channel excavation and reshaping, and channel terracing. These activities, as well as operations and maintenance (OMRR&R) activities such as sediment removal, would result in soil disturbance and have the

Rio Salado Oeste 4-5 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement potential to cause temporary discharges of soil and sediment into the river channel. Soil that is discharged into the river channel can increase turbidity, stimulate algal growth, increase sediment deposition, and adversely affect aquatic organisms. This would be a potentially significant impact but can be mitigated through the implementation of Best Management Practices.

Mitigation Measure WQ-1: Implement Erosion Control Best Management Practices (BMPs)

The Corps and its contractors shall implement erosion control measures throughout the construction period and during implementation of OMRR&R activities to minimize erosion and sediment input into the river. The Corps would oversee implementation of erosion control measures during construction. The contractor selected for the project shall:

• Conduct construction and OMRR&R activities during the dry season; • Conduct all construction work in accordance with site-specific construction plans that minimize the potential for increased sediment inputs to the river; • Divert concentrated runoff away from channel banks; • Minimize vegetation removal; • Identify with construction fencing all areas that required clearing, grading, revegetation, or reshaping in a way that minimizes areas to be cleared, graded, reshaped or otherwise disturbed; • Grade and stabilize spoils and stockpile sites to minimize erosion and sediment input to the river; • Implement erosion control measures as appropriate to prevent sediment from entering the river channel or other watercourses to the extent feasible, including the use of silt fencing or fiber rolls to trap sediments and erosion control blankets to protect channel banks; • Apply water to unpaved haul roads at a frequency adequate to maintain visible surface moisture; • Mulch disturbed areas as appropriate and plant with appropriate species as soon as practicable after disturbance, and; • Avoid operating equipment in flowing water by using temporary cofferdams or other suitable structures to diver flow around the channel and bank construction areas. • If hay bales are used for erosion control during construction they must be sterile and weed-free.

4.3.2.2.2 Impact: Potential Adverse Effects on Water Quality Associated with Accidental Spills of Fuels or Other Toxic Materials during Project Construction

Project construction and restoration activated could result in accidental spills of fuel or other toxic materials associated with the operation of construction equipment (e.g., gasoline, oils, lubricants, solvents). Hazardous substances that enter the river channel could have temporary adverse effects on water quality and aquatic organisms. This impact is considered potentially significant, but can be mitigated through the implementation of BMPs.

Rio Salado Oeste 4-6 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement Mitigation Measure WQ-2: Implement Spill Prevention Measures

The Corps and its contractors would prepare a spill prevention and response plan that regulates the use of hazardous and toxic materials, such as petroleum-based fuels and lubricants for construction equipment. The Corps would oversee development and implementation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan. Elements of that plan would ensure that:

• workers are trained to avoid and manage spills; • construction and maintenance materials are prevented from entering the river channel; • all spills are cleaned up immediately and appropriate agencies are notified of any spills and of the clean-up procedures employed; • staging and storage areas for equipment, materials, fuels, lubricants, solvents, and other possible contaminants are located at least 100-feet a way from the river’s normal high- water area; • vehicles are removed from the river’s normal high-water area before refueling or lubricating; • vehicles are immediately removed from the work area if they are leaking, and; • equipment is not operated in flowing water (if necessary, suitable temporary structures can be installed to divert water around in-channel work areas).

4.3.2.2.3 Impact: Potential Beneficial Effects on Water Quality Associated with Stormwater

All of the alternatives include the creation of additional In-Channel Wetlands. The addition of In-Channel Wetlands has the potential to increase the retention of nutrients carried in by fine sediments, which would improve water quality. The wetland plants would also act as filters by taking up nutrients (such as nitrogen and phosphorus), which can cause algal blooms and fish kills in streams and lakes. Wetland vegetation would provide additional water quality benefits, such as removing additional nitrogen through the action of soil bacteria, binding to metal pollutants such as lead, zinc and cadmium, removing some kinds of pesticides bound to sediments, retaining other pesticides long enough for them to break down into less harmful components, and preventing stormwater runoff from causing destructive downstream soil erosion by holding water after a storm and releasing it slowly (Ohio EPA Fact Sheets and Publications, 2006).

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.

4.3.2.3 Alternatives 4, 5, 5A, and 5B

4.3.2.3.1 Impact: Potential Adverse Effects on Water Quality Associated with Effluent

Alternatives 4, 5, 5A, and 5B add supplemental water supply in the form of effluent from the 23rd Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant. Wastewater from this plant undergoes tertiary treatment and is released at wastewater class A+. Arizona Administrative Code, Title 18, Environmental Quality defines the classification of A+ as: “…wastewater that has undergone secondary treatment, filtration, nitrogen removal treatment, and disinfection…” In addition, A+ wastewater

Rio Salado Oeste 4-7 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement turbidity must be kept below five Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTUs), a measure of water clarity, at all times, and strict regulations minimize fecal coliform organisms and enteric viruses. In summary, no adverse effects on water quality associated with effluent use are anticipated.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.

4.3.2.3.2 Impact: Potential Adverse Effects on Groundwater Quality associated with Introduction of Effluent Water Source

While the water quality of the 23rd Avenue WWTP would not adversely impact overall water quality within the project, there is a chance that portions of the additional water source may enter the groundwater within the Upper Alluvial Unit (UAU) above and beyond current conditions. If such recharging occurs, the potential for it to leach contaminants that may be present in the project implementation area exists. Appendix D of the Feasibility Report, Groundwater Quality Hydrogeology Report analyzed this potential with a modified Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. The report investigated four areas of potential groundwater concern: Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund (WQARF) or National Priority List (NPL) sites, also known as Superfund sites, Landfills, WWTPs, and Leaking Underground Storage Tank sites (LUSTs).

The report concluded that potential adverse effects would not occur due to WQARF/NPL sites because the sites of concern are located upgradient of project features. The landfills are for the most part under the OMRR&R phase of remediation and are located outside the possible locations for project features. Therefore, potential adverse effects from landfills are considered not to be significant. Only the 23rd Avenue WWTP impacts groundwater in the project implementation area and lies within the potential project features areas. This WWTP is currently at A+ standards and is monitored regularly. No potential adverse effects are expected to occur to groundwater sources due to WWTPs. Thirteen LUST sites with monitoring wells on record with ADWR were identified within the study area. These sites may have impacts to local soil and water conditions but are not considered likely to affect the project to be implemented within the floodplain.

In conclusion, a possibility remains that additional groundwater recharge may occur due to the supplemental effluent in Alternatives 4, 5, 5A and 5B. The four investigation areas of potential concern are determined to have a less than significant impact on groundwater quality.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.

4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

This section analyzes the impact of each alternative on the biological resources of the Rio Salado Oeste study area. The impacts analysis focuses on short-term effects that project construction, implementation, and operation may have on existing vegetation and wildlife. The long-term biological impacts are expected to be beneficial because the major focus of the action alternatives is ecosystem restoration, which would increase wildlife habitat in the study area.

Rio Salado Oeste 4-8 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement 4.4.1 APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

In June 2002, a team of biologists and other specialists in related fields conducted the habitat evaluation analysis for baseline and future without-project conditions using the Hydrogeomorphic (HGM) approach. The HGM team consisted of Corps (Los Angeles District [LAD] and Engineer Research and Development Center [ERDC]) personnel, representatives from the non-federal sponsor (City of Phoenix), and federal and state resource agency personnel. In May 2004, the HGM team conducted the HGM analysis for the action alternatives. The HGM analysis provides quantitative estimates of projected habitat benefits over the period of analysis for the alternatives, and also provides a means of comparing the benefits of the different alternatives, including the No-Action alternative. HGM benefits are expressed as Functional Capacity Units (FCUs). Members of the HGM team develop Functional Capacity Indices, which are the indices within the ecosystem that can be quantified to present a range of how the ecosystem is functioning and how it would function with different alternatives. Indices include such functions as: floodwater detention, internal nutrient cycling, organic carbon export, removal and sequestration of elements and compounds, maintenance of characteristic plant communities, and wildlife habitat maintenance. These FCIs can then be multiplied by acreages to derive Functional Capacity Units, or the unit that provides a means of assessing the gains or losses in functional value for a single target year of interest. For all alternatives, a baseline condition of 583 FCUs is used. The FCUs are averaged over the period of analysis for the project (51 years for this study) to determine Average Annual FCUs (AAFCUs) for each alternative. This analysis includes the AAFCUs for each of the alternatives for purposes of comparison. The detailed HGM analysis is included as Appendix I of the Feasibility Report.

Biological baseline studies were used as the basis to evaluate project impacts for each alternative. Plans for each alternative were reviewed and the potential changes in habitat communities were determined. In general, the following criteria were considered in determining significant impacts on biological resources:

• Loss of individuals or populations of a Special Status species or critical habitat for listed species • Loss of critical habitat or sensitive plant communities • Substantial loss of species or community diversity in natural vegetation and wildlife habitat • Substantial loss of populations or habitat of Special Status that would jeopardize the continued existence of the species within the region • Adverse effects on special aquatic sites (e.g., wetlands) • Substantial loss of natural vegetation • Loss or long-term disruption of a major wildlife movement corridor • Take or harassment of any listed threatened or endangered species

Rio Salado Oeste 4-9 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement 4.4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

4.4.2.1 No-Action Alternative

The No-Action Alternative would occur if no federal action is conducted. The Rio Salado Oeste study area has already been highly degraded due to construction of upstream dams, disconnection of the riparian ecosystem from groundwater sources, sand and gravel mining, and development associated with the Phoenix metropolitan area. Future characteristics along the Salt River channel are expected to remain similar to current conditions, though the location of active sand and gravel mining activities would change. The addition of increased impervious surfaces along portions of the floodplain upstream would likely result in increased flow rates for the river following rain events, particularly for those smaller events that mostly infiltrate under current conditions. Existing cottonwood/willow areas are highly fragmented and are being replaced by salt cedar. The small remnant habitat that remains is supported by stormwater outfalls and wastewater effluent discharges, which are expected to continue in theWithout-Project condition. Due to the lack of suitable habitat and the proximity of the Phoenix metropolitan area, riparian wildlife species are already largely absent from the area.

4.4.2.1.1 Impact: Long-Term Decrease in Vegetation

In the HGM functional assessment, many assumptions are proposed. The study area is quickly urbanizing with industrial and medium-density residential development. The study estimated that all 133 acres of agricultural land in the study area would be converted to urban (residential) uses within six years. As this development occurs, impervious ground cover would increase, thereby reducing both available land for native habitat and infiltration of runoff. The already rare cottonwood/willow forest is forecast to decrease in area from 112 acres to 25 acres over the next 50 years, primarily due to decreasing water availability and competition from the invasive salt cedar. The lost cottonwood/willow area is expected to slowly convert to less desirable scrub-shrub lands, which already dominate the study area. An additional five acres of wet river bottom habitat would convert to dry river bottom in the same period due to an assumed reduction in wastewater discharge at the 23rd Avenue wastewater treatment plant. While a reduction in wetland area from 30 acres to 25 acres seems inconsequential, nearly all of this habitat type has already been lost. The small amount of wetlands that would remain would be supported by wastewater effluents that are expected to continue. Ecologically important mesquite bosques have already been completely eliminated from the area and would remain absent. An additional 160 acres of desert/bare earth is expected to be created in the same period, primarily due to loss of open water areas remaining from inactive sand and gravel operations. Due to pending permit applications for new sand and gravel mining operations, it was assumed that the acreage of sand and gravel pits would remain approximately the same (671 acres), but would move to new sites at the west end of the study area. Together with the noted loss in other natural settings such as desert and open water habitats, the overall loss of wetland and terrestrial communities that serve as habitat for a myriad of wildlife species is significant.

The issue of groundwater overdraft is an extremely important one in the Salt River watershed. Despite the obvious evidence of water within the channel through many portions of the study area, the watershed throughout the area remains in a state of moderate to severe groundwater

Rio Salado Oeste 4-10 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement depletion. Historic groundwater levels (that may have actually or nearly reached the surface in some reaches of the channel) now range from approximately 30 to 100 feet below the surface. This issue impacts a number of resources in the study area, notably riparian habitats and associated wildlife. All existing native riparian vegetation within the study area is completely dependent on the availability of water. Were it not for effluent flows in the channel, nothing would remain of these diverse and critical riparian resources. Without this source, the vegetation would gradually give way to xeric species more suited to desert upland settings. Current effluent flow supports a limited but significant growth of vegetation in those reaches in which water remains on the surface, or flows as shallow subsurface flow. The contribution of effluent to this shallow groundwater zone cannot be underestimated. Despite its importance, a reduction in the volume of this effluent is anticipated within the next 6 years.

4.4.2.1.2 Impact: Long-Term Changes in Fish and Wildlife Populations

The already rare cottonwood/willow forest is forecast to decrease in area from 112 acres to 25 acres over the next 50 years, primarily due to decreasing water availability and competition from the invasive salt cedar. Cottonwood-willow forest stands out as the most important remnant wildlife habitat in the area. Cottonwood-willow supports the densest and most diverse wildlife communities in valleys and deserts. The diversity of plant species and growth forms provides a variety of foods and microclimate conditions for wildlife. Cottonwood-willow habitat provides substantial nesting support for large birds, such as Great Blue Heron, Red-Tailed Hawk, American Kestrel, Western Screech Owl, Great Horned Owl and the Northern Flicker. Due to the changes in vegetation, it is anticipated that wildlife that utilizes cottonwood/willow, or that requires ponded water would significantly decrease in the area.

The lost cottonwood/willow area is expected to slowly convert to less desirable scrub-shrub lands, which already dominate the study area. Thus, species that are able to survive in scrub- shrublands would likely remain and perhaps increase in number.

4.4.2.1.3 Impact: Long-Term Effects of Recreational Use to Wildlife and Vegetation

The disturbance from unregulated recreation, off-highway vehicle traffic and “wildcat” dumping is expected to continue and potentially increase in some areas, further degrading the riparian system.

4.4.2.1.4 Impact: Long-Term Decrease in Potential for Threatened and Endangered Species

Ten special-status species have the potential to occur in the study area: the lowland leopard frog, desert tortoise, Mexican garter snake, cactus ferruginous pygmy owl, Yuma clapper rail, southwestern willow flycatcher, western yellow-billed cuckoo, American peregrine falcon, bald eagle and the lesser long-nosed bat. All of these species are considered to be Wildlife of Special Concern by Arizona Game and Fish Department and six of them are considered to be a Candidate Species, Threatened or Endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Table 3.4- 2). Under the No-Action Alternative, these species would experience a continual degradation of their requisite habitats.

Rio Salado Oeste 4-11 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement

The decrease of cottonwood/willow forests from 112 acres to 25 acres effectively removes the potential for the Yuma clapper rail and southwestern willow flycatcher to return to breed within the project area. Conversion of agricultural land to urban uses, through time, would eliminate potential for recovery of the cactus ferruginous pygmy owl and lesser long-nosed bat due to lighting, noise, and loss of habitat within the urban areas.

4.4.2.1.5 Impact: No Change in Functional Capacity Units.

The average functional capacity index (FCI) score across the ten functions listed in Table IV-8 of the Feasibility Report, was 0.33, which indicates a fair to moderately low functioning wetland ecosystem at best. Over the 50-year planning horizon, the Without-Project FCUs are predicted to decline from 583 at target year (TY) 0, the year baseline conditions are established, to 579 FCUs at TY 51, the end of the period of analysis. Therefore, the without-project AACFU output is forecast to remain essentially unchanged (the slight decline from 583 AAFCU to 579 AAFCU is due to rounding error).

4.4.2.2 Alternatives 2, 4, 5, 5A and 5B

4.4.2.2.1 Impact: Potential Short-Term Decrease in Vegetation due to Construction

Clearing, grading, and other construction-related activities would eliminate a minimum of 137 acres of disturbed scrub-shrubland, sparsely vegetated river bottom habitat, and other disturbed habitat in the vicinity of the stormwater outfall areas. Alternatives 4, 5, 5A and 5B would eliminate an additional 324 acres of mostly disturbed shrub-scrublands for the creation of additional cottonwood/willow and mesquite habitats. While the quality of the vegetation is less than desirable, the temporary loss in amount of vegetation is significant. These effects can be minimized with mitigation.

Mitigation Measure BR-1: Re-vegetation Construction Management Practices.

The Corps would remove salt cedar (Tamarix spp.) and giant reed (Arundo donax) from the restoration areas as part of the restoration process (Alternatives 4, 5, 5A, and 5B). The City of Phoenix, the non-federal sponsor, would be responsible for maintaining the restored habitat areas free of invasive plants, especially salt cedar and giant reed, throughout the life of the project (Alternatives 4, 5, 5A, and 5B).

The cleared areas would be re-vegetated with habitat of higher quality and permanence than the habitat removed. Implementation of good construction management practices, especially dust suppression with water and/or non-toxic dust-suppressing chemicals or soil binders, would minimize potential impacts from fugitive dust. Also, decreases in the vegetation population can be minimized through careful phasing of the project construction. Areas of desirable vegetation can be delineated on construction plans as areas that are not to be disturbed. Additionally, vegetation removal would occur outside of the spring breeding season to ensure adequate time for a majority of the avian offspring to disperse prior to construction activities.

Rio Salado Oeste 4-12 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement Mitigation Measure BR-2: Use Clean and Certified Foreign Soils

If any imported topsoil is used in the restoration project, it shall be clean and certified free of weeds, including seeds (Alternatives 2, 4, 5, 5A, and 5B). Feral or free-ranging cats and dogs shall be reported to the local of Animal Control office, and signs shall be posted prohibiting the release of pets of any kind and the use of the restoration area by unrestrained pets (Alternatives 2, 4, 5, 5A, and 5B).

4.4.2.2.2 Impact: Long-Term Increase in Vegetation

Restoration of the disturbed and sparsely vegetated habitat in the channel and outfall areas would result in long-term beneficial effects. All of the alternatives would restore approximately 66 acres of cottonwood/willow habitat, 43 acres of mesquite habitat and 28 acres of wetland habitat in the vicinity of the stormwater outfalls. Alternatives 4, 5, 5A and 5B would restore significantly more acres of habitat; see Table ES-1 for further detail.

Approximately 773 acres of disturbed scrub-shrublands and disturbed river bottom habitat along the channel corridor would be restored to potentially support higher quality Sonoran Desert riparian habitat. Table 2.5-1 summarizes the restored acreage of various vegetative communities for each alternative.

Mitigation Measures: No Mitigation Required.

4.4.2.2.3 Impact: Short-Term Decrease in Fish and Wildlife Populations due to Construction and OMRR&R Activities

Channel clearing and reconfiguration activities in the channel and in the vicinity of the outfalls would temporarily displace onsite wildlife. Some mortality of slower-moving ground-dwelling wildlife on site may occur with vehicular traffic during construction and OMRR&R. Noise and other disturbance associated with the operation of large construction equipment may displace additional wildlife in adjacent areas. Vector control may have slight affects to fish and wildlife populations depending on the type of control. Due to the generally low existing habitat values in the project area and the temporary nature of the disturbance, short-term impacts to wildlife would be adverse but not significant.

Mitigation Measure BR-3: Safe Harbor Agreements, Candidate Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plans

The Corps will encourage the non-Federal sponsor to enter into a Safe Harbor Agreement, Candidate Conservation Plan, or Habitat Conservation Plan as necessary for the continued O&M of the Rio Salado Oeste project. It is expected that with the development of agreements for the Rio Salado and Tres Rios restoration projects an additional agreement for the Rio Salado Oeste project will be developed.

Rio Salado Oeste 4-13 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement 4.4.2.2.4 Long-Term Benefits to Fish and Wildlife Populations

Restoration of the disturbed and sparsely vegetated habitat in the channel and outfall areas would result in a long-term beneficial effect. This alternative would restore approximately 137 acres of disturbed scrub-shrublands and disturbed river bottom to native habitat cover types that once naturally occurred in the area. Restored habitats would increase the quantity and quality of cover, forage, and breeding areas for existing wildlife populations in the Rio Salado Oeste reach. Alternative 2 would also provide opportunities for a higher diversity of native wildlife than under existing conditions. In the vicinity of the outfalls, project features would especially benefit amphibians and birds associated with wetlands and riparian habitats. Channel restoration would greatly increase the value of the Rio Salado Oeste reach as a wildlife corridor. Channel restoration would provide habitat connectivity between the authorized Rio Salado project, immediately upstream from the Rio Salado Oeste study area, and the downstream Tres Rios Environmental Restoration project. The Tres Rios project, currently under construction, extends downstream from the Rio Salado Oeste study area for nine miles to the confluence of the Gila and Agua Fria Rivers. This wildlife corridor connection would increase the values of the upstream and downstream projects to extend beyond the benefits gained on site.

Mitigation Measures: No Mitigation Required.

4.4.2.2.5 Impact: Potential Adverse Effects of Recreation to Wildlife and Vegetation

The recreation component is broken down into three primary areas for easier analysis: the channel, the bank and the terrace. No significant adverse effects of recreation to wildlife and vegetation are expected to occur because of increases in recreational users and park rangers within the area.

The channel would be accessible by the trail system from the bank at select locations along the terrace. At each transition point to the terrace, appropriate signage would inform visitors of the new habitat they are entering, and any user restrictions and expectations. The channel would provide opportunities for environmental education and developing an understanding of how the habitat has been restored.

The banks would provide recreational experiences including hiking, biking, and horseback riding to scenic overlooks, and leisure walking. Features constructed to interpret cultural and biological components would provide educational opportunities, as well as ecological themes related to the restored desert riparian habitat.

The channel is the area where the habitat has a permanent water source to create a self- sustaining ecosystem. This area would provide more limited and controlled recreational and educational experiences, such as bird watching and guided nature walks. Some areas of the channel may be designated as “sensitive” habitat, and would be protected from public impacts. The increase in regulated use would have less than significant impacts to the wildlife and vegetation.

Mitigation Measures: No Mitigation Required.

Rio Salado Oeste 4-14 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement 4.4.2.2.6 Impact: Short-Term Decrease in Potential for Special Status Species and Migratory Birds due to Construction

The cottonwood/willow habitats are especially important for resident and migratory songbirds because these and other native riparian habitats have high wildlife value and have substantially declined throughout the western United States. Many bird species use cottonwood/willow habitats in the project study area, including Anna’s hummingbird, ash-throated flycatcher, willow flycatcher, black phoebe, dusky flycatcher, western wood pewee, western kingbird, tree swallow, house wren, Bewick’s wren, verdin, Lucy’s warbler, yellow warbler, yellow-rumped warbler and red-winged blackbird. Great blue herons, double-crested cormorants, snowy egrets, great egrets, western yellow-billed cuckoos, and black-crowned night-herons also roost in the cottonwood/willow vegetation and forage in nearby habitats. No special status species are known to roost in the study area.

Channel clearing and reconfiguration activities in the channel and in the vicinity of the outfalls would temporarily decrease potential to provide suitable habitat for Wildlife of Special Concern (WSC), federally Threatened, Endangered and Candidate (T, E, & C) Species, and resident and migratory avian species. Noise and other disturbance associated with construction may decrease the potential for suitable habitat outside the study area temporarily. Due to the generally low existing habitat values in the project area and the temporary nature of the disturbance, short-term impacts to the potential for special status species, resident and migratory birds would be adverse but not significant.

Mitigation Measure BR-4: Consult with USFWS and AGFD prior to Ground-Disturbing Activities

Prior to ground-disturbing activities in existing riparian or wetland areas, the Corps would consult with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Arizona Game and Fish Department to determine the potential for the occurrence of any sensitive wildlife species. If sensitive species are determined to be present or to have potential to occur, the schedule for invasive removal shall be revised to avoid breeding seasons of any sensitive species on site (Alternatives 4, 5, 5A, and 5B).

Mitigation Measure BR-5: Conduct Operation & Maintenance Activities on a Rotating Basis and Only During Non-Nesting Periods

Sediment removal and other activities would only be conducted during non-nesting periods of the above listed Threatened, Endangered, Wildlife of Special Concern and migratory birds. Sediment removal would be conducted on a rotating basis so that no more than 25% of the marsh area would be affected in any one year.

Mitigation Measure BR-6: Reinitiation of Section 7 Consultation

The estimated construction date for this project to commence is 2010, pending Congressional Authorization and subsequent funding for design and construction. Project area conditions may change by that time. Should new information become available or suitable habitat for

Rio Salado Oeste 4-15 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement southwester willow flycatcher or Yuma clapper rail become established prior to construction commencing, protocol surveys will be conducted and section 7 consultation reinitiated as necessary.

4.4.2.2.7 Impact: Long-Term Increase in Potential for Special Status Species

Lowland leopard frog (WSC). The action alternatives are not likely to adversely impact the potential for the lowland leopard frog to exist within the study area. The species is restricted to permanent streams and generally avoids ponds or other aquatic habitats. The lowland leopard frog has disappeared from the lower Gila River and lower Colorado River systems.

Desert Tortoise (WSC). Since desert tortoises are not known to occur in the study area, none of the action alternatives would be expected to adversely this species. It is unlikely that the restoration would create suitable habitat for the desert tortoise. Therefore, implementation of any action alternative would not be likely to affect this species.

Mexican garter snake (WSC). The alternatives are not expected to adversely impact the potential for the Mexican garter snake to exist within the study area. The Mexican garter snake occurs in permanent marshes and feeds on aquatic animals, including fish and amphibians. Rio Salado Oeste would increase the area of marshes within the Salt River and thus would not adversely affect Mexican garter snake potential habitat. However, the restoration would encourage the presence of introduced, predatory species that have lead to the decline of the Mexican garter snake. Thus, there is low potential for this species to become established regardless of which alternative is selected.

Bald Eagle (Threatened and WSC). The alternatives are not expected to adversely impact the potential for bald eagle to exist within the study area. Bald eagles do not nest in the study area as here is a general lack of suitable nesting trees. However, they occur in the area as winter visitors and migrants (Benham-Blair Associates, 1980). Bald eagles have been observed foraging along the rivers in the study area (CH2M HILL et al., 1997). The open water marsh in the study area may be suitable foraging habitat for bald eagles. Restoration of cottonwood/willow gallery forest may eventually provide suitable nesting habitat for bald eagle.

Yuma Clapper Rail (Endangered and WSC). The alternatives are not likely to adversely impact the potential for the Yuma Clapper Rail to exist within the study area. The Yuma clapper rail is known to occur as a rare and local summer resident in cattail marshes in the Salt River south and west of Phoenix (Witzeman et al., 1997). However, the habitat within the study area is ephemeral, scarce and insufficient habitat for this species to occur. If suitable habitat develops in the project area prior to construction, protocol surveys will be conducted and consultation reinitiated, if necessary. Restoration of the river channel and associated wetlands (190 acres) throughout the project area should provide suitable habitat for the Yuma clapper rail in the future.

Alternatives 2, 4, 5, 5A and 5B all include emergent wetland establishment in the vicinity of the stormwater outfalls, and Alternatives 4, 5, 5A, and 5B include additional emergent wetlands in the study area. These additional emergent wetlands would potentially support and benefit Yuma

Rio Salado Oeste 4-16 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement clapper rails. Yuma clapper rails are known to be utilizing riparian habitats in the upstream (Rio Salado) and downstream (Tres Rios) ecosystem restoration projects.

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Endangered and WSC). The alternatives are not expected to adversely impact the potential for southwestern willow flycatcher to exist within the study area. Since none of the alternatives involve removal of cottonwood/willow forest habitat or other suitable southwestern willow flycatcher habitat (i.e. dense thickets of salt cedar), no adverse impact is anticipated. All five action alternatives include cottonwood/willow forest establishment in the vicinity of the stormwater outfalls, and Alternatives 4, 5, 5A, and 5B include additional cottonwood/willow forest elsewhere in the study area. These additional cottonwood/willow forest habitat areas would potentially support southwestern willow flycatchers. Alternatives 4, 5, 5A, and 5B include invasive control. Salt cedar is one of the principal target invasive species, but southwestern willow flycatchers are known to use dense mature stands of this species for nesting. At present, salt cedar in the study area does not form mature dense stands suitable for southwestern willow flycatcher nesting; therefore, its removal would not affect the species. If conditions change, and salt cedar becomes considerably denser, protocol surveys would be conducted to determine if southwestern willow flycatchers are present prior to conducting invasive control measures. If at that time southwestern willow flycatchers are present, the occupied habitat would remain undisturbed until after the nesting season.

Western Yellow-Billed Cuckoo (WSC). Implementation of Rio Salado Oeste would not adversely impact the potential for the western yellow-billed cuckoo to exist within the study area. This species nests in mature cottonwood/willow riparian forests, a habitat this project would protect and increase.

Cactus Ferruginous Pygmy Owl (Endangered and WSC). Though there are no recent records indicating this species’ possible existence within the study area, small amounts of habitat which could support this species do occur in the study area. These habitats are desert scrub and riparian areas with mature cottonwood/willow. Implementation of this project would not adversely impact the potential for the cactus ferruginous pygmy owl to exist within the study area.

American Peregrine Falcon (WSC). The alternatives are not likely to adversely impact the potential for the lowland leopard frog to exist within the study area. The species is known to nest on cliffs along the Salt River east of the study area.

Lesser Long-Nosed Bat (Endangered and WSC). No effect. No suitable roosting habitat (caves) or food source (Agave and saguaro flower nectar) occurs in the study area; therefore, none of the alternatives would affect this species.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.

4.4.2.2.8 Impact: Increase in Functional Capacity Units.

The functional output associated with Alternative 2 at the end of the 50-year study period, or TY 51 would be 633 FCUs and an increase of 51 Average Annual FCUs over without project conditions. The function output associated with Alternative 4 at TY 51 would be 775 FCUs with

Rio Salado Oeste 4-17 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement an increase of 165 AAFCUs over without-project conditions and 114 AAFCUs over Alternative 2. The functional output associated with Alternative 5 at TY 51 would be 851 FCUs with an increase of 240 AAFCUs over without-project conditions, and an increase of 75 AAFCUs over Alternative 4. The functional output associated with Alternative 5A at TY 51 would be 879 FCU with an increase of AAFCUs over without-project conditions, and an increase of 27 AAFCUs over Alternative 5. The functional output associated with Alternative 5B at TY 51 would be 865 FCUs, with an increase of 253 AAFCUs over without-project conditions, an increase of 13 AAFCUs over Alternative 5, but a decrease of 14 AAFCUs compared to Alternative 5A. This is summarized in Table 4.4-1 below.

Table 4.4-1. With-Project Average Annual Functional Capacity Units

No- Alt 2 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 5A Alt 5B Action TY0 583 583 583 583 583 583 TY51 579 633 775 851 879 865 AAFCUs (TY0-TY51) 0* 631 745 820 847 833 Increase in AAFCUs - 51 165 240 267 253 from No-Action Alt Change in AAFCUs - 51 114 75 27 -14 Between Alternatives * The slight decline from 583 AAFCU to 579 AAFCU is due to rounding error.

Mitigation Measures: No Mitigation Required.

4.4.2.3 Alternatives 4, 5, 5A and 5B

4.4.2.3.1 Impact: Potential Short-Term Adverse Effects on Vegetation

Short-term impacts of providing the additional water supply system would involve minor construction activities in disturbed areas. Impacts would be adverse but not significant.

Short-term impacts of cottonwood/willow and mesquite establishment include grading and re- contouring over 300 acres (exact number depends on alternative) of mostly disturbed scrub-shrub land habitats (in addition to the 137 acres at the stormwater outfalls). Removal of native cottonwood/willow and mesquite for the construction is not anticipated. Impacts of ground- disturbing activities would be adverse but not significant. Newly planted cottonwood, willow, and mesquite trees would begin to provide habitat benefits once the vegetation matures.

Invasive control involves the removal of undesirable non-native vegetation mechanically and/or with EPA-approved herbicides. Although a small percentage of native plants are invariably removed with the invasive species, the net short-term effect of invasive control is beneficial to native vegetation.

Short-term impacts of emergent wetland establishment would involve grading and recontouring up to five acres of mostly disturbed scrub-shrubland habitats (in addition to approximately 28

Rio Salado Oeste 4-18 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement acres at the stormwater outfalls). Short-term impacts of ground-disturbing activities would be similar to the impacts associated with establishing the cottonwood/willow and mesquite habitats. These impacts would be adverse but not significant. In order to reduce the intensity of the adverse impacts, the following mitigation measures would be implemented.

Mitigation Measure BR-1: Re-vegetation Construction Management Practices.

The Corps would remove salt cedar (Tamarax spp.) and giant reed (Arundo donax) from the restoration areas as part of the restoration process (Alternatives 4, 5, 5A, and 5B). The City of Phoenix, the non-federal sponsor, would be responsible for maintaining the restored habitat areas free of invasive plants, especially salt cedar and giant reed, throughout the life of the project (Alternatives 4, 5, 5A, and 5B).

The cleared areas would be re-vegetated with habitat of higher quality and permanence than the habitat removed. Implementation of good construction management practices, especially dust suppression with water and/or non-toxic dust-suppressing chemicals or soil binders, would minimize potential impacts from fugitive dust. Also, decreases in the vegetation population can be minimized through careful phasing of the project construction. Areas of desirable vegetation can be delineated on construction plans as areas that are not to be disturbed. Additionally, vegetation removal would occur outside of the spring breeding season to ensure adequate time for a majority of the avian offspring to disperse prior to construction activities.

Mitigation Measure BR-2: Use Clean and Certified Foreign Soils

If any imported topsoil is used in the restoration project, it shall be clean and certified free of weeds, including seeds (Alternatives 2, 4, 5, 5A, and 5B). Feral or free-ranging cats and dogs shall be reported to the local of Animal Control office, and signs shall be posted prohibiting the release of pets of any kind and the use of the restoration area by unrestrained pets (Alternatives 2, 4, 5, 5A, and 5B).

4.4.2.3.2 Impact: Long-Term Effects on Vegetation

Long-term effects of providing additional water would include increased productivity (i.e., biomass, wildlife forage and seed production) of native vegetation, increased vegetation diversity, and a potential to restore and maintain additional acres of cottonwood/willow and mesquite habitat. In addition, wetland habitat would likely become established without human intervention where conditions are favorable along the restored channel. Increased water would also support the spread of undesirable and invasive plant species, especially salt cedar (Tamarix spp.) and giant reed (Arundo donax). The impact of increased invasives would be adverse but not significant. With the inclusion of invasive control as part of this project, the long-term effects of additional water would be beneficial.

Long-term effects of cottonwood/willow and mesquite establishment include increased productivity, increased habitat structure and diversity, increased shade and cooling of the ground surface, and reduced water temperature where tree canopy overhangs the flowing channel and the edges of lakes or ponds.

Rio Salado Oeste 4-19 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Long-term invasive control involves the periodic removal of undesirable non-native vegetation mechanically and/or with EPA-approved herbicides. Periodic removal of invasives is especially beneficial during the early years following restoration, allowing the native plants to gain a competitive advantage over the invasives. The long-term effect of invasive control is highly beneficial to native vegetation.

Long-term effects of emergent wetland establishment would be beneficial. Emergent wetlands would add another element of diversity to the habitat and provide other benefits including removal of pollutants from water, substrate stabilization, and slowing flood flows. Wetlands would replace some scrub-shrublands and other disturbed habitats.

Mitigation Measures: No Mitigation Required.

4.4.2.3.3 Impact: Short-Term Effects on Fish & Wildlife

Short-term impacts of minor construction activities to provide additional water to the habitat would temporarily displace some wildlife. Because construction-related disturbance would be minor, little or no wildlife mortality is anticipated. Impacts would be adverse but not significant.

Short-term impacts of cottonwood/willow and mesquite establishment would include grading and recontouring activities in mostly disturbed scrub-shrubland and disturbed river bottom habitats (in addition to the stormwater outfalls as described in Alternative 2). Due to the additional project features of Alternative 4, a larger wildlife population would be temporarily displaced. As with Alternative 2, impacts of ground-disturbing activities would be adverse but not significant. Newly planted cottonwood, willow, and mesquite trees would begin to provide habitat benefits almost immediately.

Invasive control, either mechanically and/or with EPA-approved herbicides, may have an adverse but not significant short-term impact on wildlife. Mechanical removal of invasives would temporarily displace some native wildlife adapted to living in salt cedar or other non- native vegetation. Herbicide application, if used, would have little or no adverse impact on wildlife because only EPA-approved herbicides would be authorized.

Short-term impacts of emergent wetland establishment would be similar to the impacts associated with establishing the cottonwood/willow and mesquite habitats. Grading, recontouring, and establishing the necessary hydrology to support wetlands would displace or eliminate a small percentage of the existing wildlife in the study area. Due to this additional project feature in Alternatives 4, 5, 5A and 5B, an incrementally larger wildlife population would be temporarily displaced than with Alternative 2. These impacts would be adverse but not significant.

Mitigation Measure BR-3: Safe Harbor Agreements, Candidate Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plans

Rio Salado Oeste 4-20 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement The Corps will encourage the non-Federal sponsor to enter into a Safe Harbor Agreement, Candidate Conservation Plan, or Habitat Conservation Plan as necessary for the continued O&M of the Rio Salado Oeste project. It is expected that with the development of agreements for the Rio Salado and Tres Rios restoration projects an additional agreement for the Rio Salado Oeste project will be developed.

4.4.2.3.4 Impact: Long-Term Effects on Fish and Wildlife

Long-term effects of providing additional water to the habitat would be beneficial. The additional water would support an increase in the quantity and quality of cover, forage, and breeding areas for existing wildlife populations in the Rio Salado Oeste reach. Benefits would be similar to those described for the outfall areas under Alternative 2, but Alternatives 4, 5, 5A and 5B would provide additional acres of restored habitat, including cottonwood/willow and mesquite habitat. This additional riparian habitat would sustain considerably larger wildlife populations than the riparian habitats at the stormwater outfalls alone. Due to additional water supplies, additional wetlands would likely become established without further human intervention where conditions are favorable.

Although total habitat acreage restored would be more than triple that restored under Alternative 2, the wildlife benefits may be more than proportional to the increase in area due to the increased connectivity of habitat. The larger, more contiguous areas of habitat would potentially support a higher diversity of wildlife in addition to larger populations than the smaller, more isolated patches of habitat. In the HGM analysis for the alternatives, the team determined that for Function 10, “Maintain Interspersion and Connectivity,” the increase in habitat values would be more than proportionate to the increase in acreage for that habitat type.

Long-term effects of invasive control would include long-term benefits to wildlife in the project area due to the overall improvement of habitat quality. Long-term benefits of emergent wetland establishment include a greater diversity of habitats in the study area than with Alternative 2. This additional emergent wetland habitat would sustain considerably larger wildlife populations than the emergent wetland habitats at the stormwater outfalls alone. Wildlife groups that would benefit from emergent wetland establishment include amphibians, waterfowl, and wading birds.

Mitigation Measures: No Mitigation Required.

4.4.2.4 Alternatives 5, 5A and 5B

4.4.2.4.1 Impact: Short-Term Effects on Vegetation.

Short-term impacts of lake (gravel pit) restoration would include the loss of minimal areas of vegetation. Focus sites for restoration are the two larger gravel pits in the vicinity of 27th Avenue and 37th Avenue. Gravel pit lake restoration would include both riparian and wetland restoration, combined with control of water levels. Additional measures may include substrate modification to reduce permeability and an increased water supply. The majority of vegetation that would be disturbed is not native. Due to the low quality of existing vegetation, impacts

Rio Salado Oeste 4-21 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement would be adverse but not be significant. In order to reduce the intensity of the adverse impacts, the following mitigation measures would be implemented.

Mitigation Measure BR-1: Re-vegetation Construction Management Practices.

The Corps would remove salt cedar (Tamarax spp.) and giant reed (Arundo donax) from the restoration areas as part of the restoration process (Alternatives 4, 5, 5A, and 5B). The City of Phoenix, the non-federal sponsor, would be responsible for maintaining the restored habitat areas free of invasive plants, especially salt cedar and giant reed, throughout the life of the project (Alternatives 4, 5, 5A, and 5B).

The cleared areas would be re-vegetated with habitat of higher quality and permanence than the habitat removed. Implementation of good construction management practices, especially dust suppression with water and/or non-toxic dust-suppressing chemicals or soil binders, would minimize potential impacts from fugitive dust. Also, decreases in the vegetation population can be minimized through careful phasing of the project construction. Areas of desirable vegetation can be delineated on construction plans as areas that are not to be disturbed. Additionally, vegetation removal would occur outside of the spring breeding season to ensure adequate time for a majority of the avian offspring to disperse prior to construction activities.

Mitigation Measure BR-2: Use Clean and Certified Foreign Soils

If any imported topsoil is used in the restoration project, it shall be clean and certified free of weeds, including seeds (Alternatives 2, 4, 5, 5A, and 5B). Feral or free-ranging cats and dogs shall be reported to the local of Animal Control office, and signs shall be posted prohibiting the release of pets of any kind and the use of the restoration area by unrestrained pets (Alternatives 2, 4, 5, 5A, and 5B).

4.4.2.4.2 Impact: Long-Term Effects on Vegetation

Long-term benefits of gravel pit lake restoration would potentially include increased native emergent wetland, cottonwood/willow riparian forest, and possibly mesquite woodland. These long-term effects would be beneficial.

Mitigation Measures: No Mitigation Required.

4.4.2.4.3 Impact: Short-Term Effects on Fish and Wildlife

Gravel pit lake restoration construction activities would temporarily disturb fish, amphibians, and aquatic wildlife habitat. Reconfiguration of the gravel pits is likely to eliminate some game fish and possibly a limited number of native fish. Some amphibians may also be eliminated, depending on the timing and extent of reconfiguration work. In the absence of a major draw- down of the water level, fish would tend to avoid disturbance. In this case, impacts would be adverse, but not significant. If it becomes necessary to drain or substantially lower the water level of the lakes during construction, short term localized impacts to fish could be significant.

Rio Salado Oeste 4-22 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement Construction activities would also displace aquatic birds that roost around the edges of the lakes and/or feed upon the fish, invertebrates, and aquatic vegetation found in the gravel pit lakes. The temporary loss of fish and aquatic wildlife is considered a less than significant adverse impact because fish populations can be restored relatively quickly and other wildlife would return when the habitat is restored and improved.

Construction activities would also disturb terrestrial wildlife habitat adjacent to the lakes and would potentially displace or eliminate some common native wildlife including reptiles such as side-blotched lizard and western whiptail and small mammals such as deer mouse and desert cottontail. Due to the relatively low quality and small quantity of terrestrial habitat disturbed, impacts to terrestrial wildlife would be adverse but less than significant.

Mitigation Measure BR-3: Safe Harbor Agreements, Candidate Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plans

The Corps will encourage the non-Federal sponsor to enter into a Safe Harbor Agreement, Candidate Conservation Plan, or Habitat Conservation Plan as necessary for the continued O&M of the Rio Salado Oeste project. It is expected that with the development of agreements for the Rio Salado and Tres Rios restoration projects an additional agreement for the Rio Salado Oeste project will be developed.

Mitigation Measure BR-7: Trap and Relocate Native Fish

If it becomes necessary to drain or substantially lower the water level of the lakes during construction, short term localized impacts to fish could be significant. To mitigate this impact, it is recommended that native fish be trapped and relocated prior to any major water draw-down.

4.4.2.4.4 Impact: Long-term Effects on Fish and Wildlife

Gravel pit lake restoration would reduce open water habitat and would increase native emergent wetland, cottonwood willow riparian forest, and possibly mesquite woodland. These restored habitats would attract and support populations of native amphibians, reptiles, aquatic birds, riparian birds, and mammals, and could be stocked with native fishes. These long-term effects are beneficial. The loss of open water habitat would reduce the capacity of the lakes to support fish populations. This impact would be adverse but not significant because the displaced fish would be primarily common, non-native species. Although the quantity of open water would be reduced, the quality of open water habitat would be improved due to slope modification, shading, and diversity of topography.

Mitigation Measures: No Mitigation Required.

Rio Salado Oeste 4-23 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.5.1 APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

4.5.1.1 Significance Criteria

Adverse effects to sites and properties listed on, or eligible for, inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places are evaluated based on the Criteria of Adverse Effect as outlined in 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 800.5 of the regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).

4.5.1.1.2 Coordination and Preliminary Archaeological Surveys

Given the study area’s location upstream of the Tres Rios project, it is reasonable to conclude that the alluvial stratigraphy of the Salt River might be comparable. The entire length of the Salt River within the Rio Salado Oeste project boundary appears to have been more disturbed than areas further downstream, and has been modified through natural scouring action of periodic flooding, sand and gravel mining, and dumping.

Surveys of selected portions of the river, at all outfalls and adjacent or nearest terraces, were conducted by a Corps of Engineers staff archeologist. No cultural material was observed at any of these areas. The effects of the above mentioned impacts on the river are evident at the outfalls and surrounding areas. Based on the reconnaissance survey, level of disturbance, and data provided by the Tres Rios geological assessment, the Corps believes that the potential for buried archeological resources within the project area is low. Additional surveys may be conducted as alternatives are refined.

If upon further investigation, any resources are determined to be NRHP eligible and avoidance is not feasible, mitigation measures would be detailed in a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the affected tribes, Corps, the City of Phoenix and the Arizona State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO).

4.5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

4.5.2.1 No-Action Alternative

Implementation of the No-Action Alternative would not result in any direct impacts on cultural resources. However, it is probable that the disturbance from unregulated recreation, off-highway vehicle traffic and “wildcat” dumping will continue and potentially increase in some areas, further disturbing properties listed or eligible for listing on the National Register. Likewise, it is probable that sites may be disturbed or lost through natural processes such as flooding and erosion.

Rio Salado Oeste 4-24 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement 4.5.2.2 Alternatives 2, 4, 5, 5A and 5B

4.5.2.2.1 Impact: Potential Disturbance or Loss of Properties Listed or Eligible for Listing on the National Register

Preliminary project designs indicate low potential for adverse effects to resources eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Once design begins for the recommended project plan, additional inventory and evaluation efforts may be required. After consideration of potential for buried cultural resources within the refined project Area of Potential Effect (APE), a determination of effect would be made in consultation with SHPO, the tribes, and the City of Phoenix.

Surface examination of this area revealed no cultural material. The potential for sub-surface resources is low. The Corps has determined that the alternatives would have low potential to adversely affect sites either listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Should artifacts be discovered upon project construction, Section 106 of the NHPA (described below) would be adhered to.

Mitigation Measures CR-1: Conclude MOA to Complete Field Surveys and Conduct Testing and Data Recovery Activities as Appropriate

Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, 36 CFR 800.13(2)(b), any discoveries of either human remains or archeological deposits shall result in the following process:

• Contractor shall stop work.

• Corps of Engineers Archeology Staff shall be notified of discovery.

• Corps Archeology Staff shall determine if discovered cultural matter is an isolated find, or consists of a deposit of some extent. If needed, hand excavations shall be conducted to determine if the deposit is of sufficient content and integrity to be eligibly for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.

• The Corps shall determine eligibility, and effect in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer pursuant to 36 CFR 800(a)-(d).

4.6 AESTHETIC RESOURCES

4.6.1 APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

Impacts to aesthetic resources are evaluated based on the potential for permanent degradation to the scenic beauty of the project area. Long-term degradation, either as a direct or an indirect impact of the proposed project, would be considered a significant impact. Each action alternative includes features that would restore and enhance the river corridor. Incidental to the objectives of the project are the aesthetic improvements associated with restoration. Potential

Rio Salado Oeste 4-25 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement impacts are described by qualitatively evaluating the project components for each of the alternatives against the existing aesthetic conditions within the project area.

4.6.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

4.6.2.1 No-Action Alternative

Under the No-Action Alternative, the existing aesthetic environment would continue to slowly degrade over time, with localized improvements along the banks as developers sporadically change the local area with new construction. With the No-Action Alternative, there would be no short-term impacts on aesthetic resources that are associated with construction activities. However, long-term aesthetic improvements would not be realized with this alternative.

4.6.2.2 Alternatives 2, 4, 5, 5A and 5B

4.6.2.2.1 Impact: Potential Short-Term Adverse Aesthetic Effects due to Construction

The alternatives involve excavation and grading in the river corridor, construction of a grade control structure, installation of constructed wetlands, and development of cottonwood/willow, mesquite and Sonoran Scrub-shrub habitat. These temporary activities could result in impacts on the aesthetic quality of the area. Passers-by on adjacent streets may experience temporary views of construction activities and construction equipment in the river corridor and nearby areas. However, there are relatively limited viewing/access points from adjacent roadways and construction activities would not appear to be much different to the casual observer than the current sand and gravel mining activities. The potential impacts from these construction-related activities would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.

4.6.2.2.2 Impact: Potential Long-Term Adverse Aesthetic Effects

The alternatives include a grade control structure west of 35th Avenue. The structure would be similar to those installed in the upstream Rio Salado project and would consist of roller- compacted concrete and grouted stone. The structure should not be highly visible from nearby areas and the view of the structure should be reduced as vegetation matures in the adjacent areas. Thus, the installation of the grade control structure is not considered a significant aesthetic impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.

4.6.2.2.3 Impact: Potential Long-Term Aesthetic Benefits

The alternatives would include significant increases in wetland, cottonwood/willow, mesquite, and Sonoran Scrub-shrub communities. Additionally, removal of salt cedar and other invasive vegetation species that signify habitat disturbance and degradation would improve habitat values and increase biodiversity in the project implementation area.

Rio Salado Oeste 4-26 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement

The alternatives also include opportunities for passive and active recreation along the Salt River in regulated areas. Thus, the increases to habitat and biodiversity would provide improved aesthetic quality in the corridor while recreation features would guide users to these areas. This is considered a beneficial effect.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.

4.7 AIR QUALITY

4.7.1 APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

Implementation of any of the proposed alternatives would generate emissions from both the construction phase, and later Operation, Maintenance, Repair, Replacement and Rehabilitation (OMRR&R) activities. The construction-related emissions would consist of fugitive dust from disturbed soil, exhaust and dust emissions produced by the use of heavy construction equipment, and exhaust and dust emissions from construction worker commute trips. OMRR&R for any alternative other than the No-Action Alternative would also generate exhaust and dust emissions from vehicles driven by workers and recreational visitors, as well as routine maintenance. OMRR&R would be conducted by the non-federal sponsor, and would be subject to dust control under Maricopa County Rule 310.

As discussed in Section 3.7.4.2, federal projects must be evaluated to determine whether their emissions would exceed specified de minimus thresholds for six criteria pollutants. If the de minimus threshold is exceeded for a criteria pollutant, it must be demonstrated that these emissions conform with the applicable State Implementation Plan (SIP). Total project emissions of ozone precursors (Volatile Organic Compounds [VOC] and Oxides of Nitrogen [NOx]), carbon monoxide (CO), and fugitive dust (PM-10) associated with each alternative are thus compared to de minimus thresholds. Air quality impacts would be considered significant if the proposed action causes any of these emission thresholds to be exceeded.

Detailed information on the methods and assumptions used to estimate air pollutant emissions is provided in Appendix D. To calculate construction and OMRR&R emissions, emission factors developed by EPA’s AP-42, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors have been used. Calculations are also based on construction information provided in this FEIS. The following types of air pollutant emission sources are included in the calculations:

• Fugitive dust emissions from haul trucks, off road equipment and passenger vehicles on unpaved roads within the construction site were estimated based on the assumed number of vehicle trips and travel distance, using AP-42 emission factors applicable for the western United States. For the construction phases, it was assumed that unpaved haul roads would be aggressively watered to reduce dust emissions. • Fugitive dust emissions from excavating, loading, dumping, and spreading of bulk materials during channel excavation and bank stabilization were estimated based on the

Rio Salado Oeste 4-27 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement assumed earthwork volumes, using the EPA’s AP-42, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. • Emissions from construction equipment tailpipes were estimated based on the type and number of equipment, using recent emission factors for off-road equipment the EPA’s AP-42, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors.

• Emissions from passenger vehicle traffic associated with the project were based upon the EPA’s AP-42, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors.

4.7.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

4.7.2.1 No-action

Under the No-Action Alternative, no project-related construction activities would take place and no new construction-related commute trips would occur. Thus, no construction-related emissions would be generated. Recreational use of the site would likely remain unchanged, with no increases in criteria emissions resulting from new recreational use of the Rio Salado Oeste project.

4.7.2.2 Alternatives 2, 4, 5, 5A and 5B

All five build alternatives would follow a similar construction schedule, beginning with river channel restoration, followed by lake restoration/construction, revegetation and construction of recreational/maintenance features. For Alternative 5A, the Recommended Plan, channel restoration work would occur over the first two years of construction. This work would include actual restoration of the river channel, as well as wetland restoration, grade control structure installation, and removal of invasive species. Lake restoration work would be completed during the third and fourth years of construction. Revegetation would require nine months in each of the third and fourth years of construction (total duration of 18 months). Finally, construction of recreational trails and maintenance roads would be completed during in the fourth year of construction, concurrent with lake restoration and revegetation.

Air quality impacts would be distributed over the four year construction period. Table 4.7-1 summarizes the estimated annual air emissions associated with implementation of Alternative 5A. Annual emissions of VOC, CO, PM-10, NOX and SOX would remain below federal conformity de minimus thresholds during each year of project construction and operation; thus, impacts from these emissions are considered less than significant. SOX has been included in the analysis even though Maricopa County does not violate that standard and does not have a SIP for this pollutant.

Air emissions associated with construction of Alternatives 2, 4, and 5B would be similar to or lower than those occurring under Alternative 5A. Due to the much larger volume of material regraded for lake restoration for Alternative 5 (5.4 million cubic yards compared to 3.2 million cubic yards for Alternative 5A), Alternative 5 would likely exceed the de minimus thresholds of

Rio Salado Oeste 4-28 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement 70 tons/year for PM-10, requiring a conformity determination. However, since Alternative 5 is not cost effective (Rio Salado Oeste Feasibility Report, Chapter V), implementation of this alternative is not anticipated.

Table 4.7-1. Estimated Air Emissions for Alternative 5A (Tons/Year)

Year 1 Construction Tasks VOC CO PM-10 NOX SOX Channel Restoration 0.41 3.35 17.30 7.31 0.75 Wetland Restoration 0.23 2.18 6.97 4.65 0.49 Grade Control Structure 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.00 Invasive Species Removal 0.25 1.83 10.79 4.39 0.47 Total Emissions 0.89 7.42 35.06 16.36 1.71

Year 2 Construction Tasks VOC CO PM-10 NOX SOX Channel Restoration 0.41 3.35 17.30 7.31 0.75 Wetland Restoration 0.23 2.18 6.97 4.65 0.49 Grade Control Structure 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.00 Invasive Species Removal 0.25 1.83 10.79 4.39 0.47 Total Emissions 0.89 7.42 35.06 16.36 1.71

Year 3 Construction Tasks VOC CO PM-10 NOX SOX Lake Restoration 1.10 8.07 56.34 19.11 2.01 Revegetation 0.46 1.59 0.36 4.28 0.42 Total Emissions 1.56 9.66 56.7 23.39 2.43

Year 4 Construction Tasks VOC CO PM-10 NOX SOX Lake Restoration 1.10 8.07 56.34 19.11 2.01 Revegetation 0.46 1.59 0.36 4.28 0.42 Trails/Maintenance Roads 0.25 1.82 4.78 4.42 0.47 Total Emissions 1.81 11.48 61.48 27.81 2.9 Federal Standards (Tons/Yr) VOC CO PM-10 NOX SOX (Exceedance requires 100 100 70 100 100 conformity determination)

4.7.2.2.1 Impact: Generation of Construction-Related and Tailpipe Emissions (CO, VOC, NOX)

Construction and OMRR&R activities would generate emissions of ozone precursors, carbon monoxide (CO) and PM-10 in the form of tailpipe emissions. Construction tailpipe emissions would originate from a combination of construction equipment activities, and construction worker commute trips. OMRR&R activities would generate tailpipe emissions from recreational vehicle trips, employee trips, and a variety of maintenance activities.

Mitigation Measure: No mitigation is required.

4.7.2.2.2 Impact: Generation of Construction-Related and Operational Fugitive Dust (PM-10) Emissions

Rio Salado Oeste 4-29 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Channel excavation and bank stabilization activities would generate fugitive dust emissions at the construction site. Table 4.7-1 summarizes the estimated emissions that are associated with implementation of Alternative 5A. Annual fugitive PM-10 emissions during the year of maximum construction activity (Year 4) would be less than federal de minimus thresholds for General Conformity. As described by the detailed emission calculations provided in Appendix D, most of the PM-10 emissions would be generated by excavation of and spreading of riverbed material, and from haul trucks on unpaved roads.

Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Implement PM-10 - Reducing Measures during Channel Excavation and Bank Stabilization

All construction, restoration and routine maintenance activities would be required to include fugitive dust control measures in accordance with Maricopa County Air Quality Rule 310. The Corps would implement an appropriate combination of the following PM-10-reducing construction practices in compliance with Maricopa County Rule 310 throughout the construction period.

• Apply water to unpaved haul roads at a frequency adequate to maintain visible surface moisture. Alternatively, apply nontoxic binders (e.g., latex acrylic copolymer) to supplement road watering in accordance with Maricopa County Rule 310. • Minimize vehicle speed on unpaved roads. • Water active storage piles at least with a frequency consistent with Maricopa County Rule 310. • Cover or otherwise stabilize inactive storage piles where feasible. • Cover haul trucks securely when transporting materials. • Water all active construction areas with a frequency consistent with Maricopa County Rule 310. Frequency should be increased if wind speeds exceed 15 mph. • Prohibit all grading activities during periods of high wind (i.e., winds greater than 30 mph). Compliance with Maricopa County rules would be made a condition of the construction contract and would be enforced through weekly inspection by the Corps.

4.7.2.2.3 Impact: Determination of Conformity

Based on the air quality analysis described in Appendix D, implementation of Alternative 5A would not have a significant impact on air quality. The total emissions of each criteria pollutant is below de minimus levels as prescribed in 40 CFR 93.153(b). Therefore, this proposed project conforms to the federal Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 and, as required, a Record of Non- Applicability has been prepared instead of a Conformity Determination (Appendix D).

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.

Rio Salado Oeste 4-30 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement 4.7.2.2.4 Impact: Long-Term Effects on Air Quality due to Recreational Use

Due to the location of the project and the intimacy of the expected recreation and education experience, it is projected that most visitors would arrive by private vehicle. Based on historical data maintained by the City of Phoenix for resource-based recreational sites, it is estimated that 2.75 visitors arrive in each vehicle. Additionally, an estimated one visitor per four vehicles arrives at a site by an alternate mode of transportation including bicycle, foot traffic and public transportation. It would be a legitimate goal of the Recreation/Education component to increase the ratio of visitors arriving by alternate means such as buses.

Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Promotion of Alternative Transportation and Energy Efficiency.

In order to mitigate potential environmental impacts from increased traffic, recreational facilities (e.g., multipurpose trails, walk-in access points, access control, continuity with other projects) would be developed that promote alternative transportation and energy efficiency. Initial capacity of the parking facilities would be designed for not more than 500 vehicles in order to limit the potential impact of human activities upon the restoration project.

4.8 NOISE

4.8.1 APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

Noise impacts are analyzed using standard noise modeling methods. First, potential sources of noise are identified. Then, noise levels for each source are identified from standard references or monitoring data for similar sources. The distance from sources to noise-sensitive receptors is determined, and the projected sound level of sources at the receptor is calculated, taking into account attenuation factors, such as distance and atmospheric effects. Resulting sound levels at receptors are compared to relevant sound level criteria, if criteria exist for a project, to determine the relative magnitude of a noise effect. For each of the project alternatives except for the No- Action Alternative, noise effects would occur during the construction phase of the alternatives and during post-construction use of the site by recreationists. These effects would be in the form of increased traffic noise in the project study area.

4.8.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

4.8.2.1 No-Action Alternative

Under the No-Action Alternative, no changes to ambient noise conditions in the project study area would occur. No construction-related noise would be generated, and no new project-related traffic would use area roadways. For these reasons, there would be no adverse noise effects associated with this alternative.

Rio Salado Oeste 4-31 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement 4.8.2.2 Alternatives 2, 4, 5, 5A and 5B

4.8.2.2.1 Impact: Short-Term Effects Upon Ambient Noise Conditions due to Construction and OMRR&R Activities

Residents living adjacent to or near the project area would be exposed to noise from construction or OMRR&R activities. Typical equipment used would include graders, loaders, rollers, bulldozers, trucks, scrapers, pumps, and generators.

The study area already has moderate activity levels and several sources of adverse noise. The principle sources of noise in the study area are sand and gravel mining operations. These would remain the largest and most significant contributor to ambient noise in the study area. Most of the construction operations would occur within the river bottom. Any increase in noise levels observed by sensitive receptors along the project area is expected to be insignificant with implementation of a few noise-reducing construction measures.

Mitigation Measure N-1: Employ Noise-Reducing Construction Measures.

Construction within 1,000-feet of residences or other noise-sensitive uses shall be restricted to daytime hours. No construction shall be performed within 1,000-feet of an occupied dwelling on Sundays, on legal holidays, or between the hours of 7pm and 7am on other days.

All construction equipment shall have sound-control devices that are at least as effective as those devices provided on the original equipment. No equipment shall have a muffled exhaust.

As directed by the Corps, the contractor shall implement appropriate additional noise mitigation, including, but not limited to, changing the location of stationary construction equipment, shutting off idling equipment, notifying adjacent residents in advance of construction work, and installing acoustic barriers around stationary construction noise sources.

4.8.2.2.2 Impact: Long-Term Effects on Ambient Noise Conditions

The restored ecosystem has the potential to increase visitation and use. The most significant possible noise increase would come from increased traffic noise. The additional traffic would be distributed throughout a typical day and would not be concentrated during peak hours. Since expected recreation-related traffic represents a very small fraction of total traffic volume in the area, the contribution of project traffic to local noise conditions would not be considered significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.

Rio Salado Oeste 4-32 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement 4.9 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC RESOURCES

Sections 3.9.2 and 3.9.3 describe the requirements for assessing environmental justice as well as identified minority and low-income populations in the socioeconomic study area.

4.9.1 APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

Evaluation criteria used to assess social impacts include, but are not limited to: detectable increases or decreases to population, housing, employment or income due to the project and; environmental justice issues as defined in Section 3.9.3.

Socioeconomic impacts were determined through the evaluation of areas affected by each alternative. Land required for each of the alternatives was superimposed on GIS land use maps to evaluate the affected land, buildings, and transportation facilities.

4.9.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

4.9.2.1 No-Action Alternative

Existing socioeconomic conditions would remain relatively unaffected as a result of the project. Under the No-Action Alternative, normal fluctuations in socioeconomic conditions would continue. No substantial impacts are anticipated. No impacts involving environmental justice would result.

4.9.2.2.1 Impact: Detectable Increases or Decreases to Population, Housing, Employment or Income due to the Project

None of the alternatives would cause significant direct or indirect impacts on social or economic resources, such as population, housing, employment, or income in the study area. The minimal construction-related employment during the project and park ranger-related employment during the life of the project would not have the capacity to affect local or regional income levels or to increase employment to any significant levels locally or regionally. Normal fluctuations in socioeconomic conditions would naturally occur over time with or without the project. No substantial impacts are anticipated.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.

4.9.2.2.2 Impact: Potential Beneficial Effects on Quality of Life Adjacent to Project

The existing streambed consists primarily of a dry wash with no recreational facilities or public access for recreation. The project would include trails, scenic overlooks, interpretive centers, gathering areas, parking facilities, restrooms and shade structures. Activities along the project corridor would include bird watching, hiking, biking, equestrian uses, wildlife observation and fishing. The addition of this parks system in place of the existing environment has the potential to increase the quality of life adjacent to the project area.

Rio Salado Oeste 4-33 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.

4.9.2.2.3 Impact: Effects on Environmental Justice

EO 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” requires that Federal agencies include environmental justice as part of its mission by identifying and addressing as appropriate, the potential for disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations. The impact of Rio Salado Oeste is not expected to pose health risks or adverse environmental effects. Furthermore, comparing the project implementation area to parcel ownership information in GIS shows that the project will only affect certain industrial properties adjacent or within the river and is not expected to require the disruption or displacement of any businesses or residences in the area. Therefore, the Rio Salado Oeste project will not have a disproportionately high impact on minority or low-income populations.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.

4.10 TRANSPORTATION

4.10.1 APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

The Oeste project consists of restoration of an eight mile reach of Salt River extending from 19th Avenue to 83rd Avenue. The dominant mode of transportation for this area is the automobile. Along this reach of the Salt River, there are three bridged crossings and one at-grade crossing. Nearly all local streets and arterials near the Salt River form a north-south, east-west grid roadway network. Impacts on transportation were assessed based on how project-related construction and post-construction traffic would benefit or adversely affect existing traffic and roadway infrastructure. For this analysis, it was assumed that there would be no permanent or temporary road closures associated with any of the alternatives, with the exception of occasional closures related to high flows in the main channel. Traffic and circulation effects related to the number of vehicle trips associated with construction workers commuting to the project site were based on estimates of labor hours. Estimates of daily vehicle trips were developed using the following assumptions:

• Eight labor hours generate one person-round-trip. • Vehicle occupancy rates are 1.1 people per vehicle. • Construction activities occur year-round on approximately 200 days per year. • An adequate supply of construction workers resides within a reasonable distance from the proposed project sites. Because Sky Harbor Airport would not be affected by this project, no detailed analysis related to this facility was performed. Haul routes were assumed to be either within the river channel or via local primary streets to I-17.

Rio Salado Oeste 4-34 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement 4.10.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

4.10.2.1 No-Action Alternative

Under the No-Action Alternative, traffic volume would continue to increase as the surrounding areas became more developed. This is especially true in the western part of the project area where new housing developments are being constructed. In addition, to accommodate the increase in traffic volumes, the roadways would continue to be widened, typically up to six lanes with a median. There would be no short-term increases in traffic from construction, no accelerated damage to roadways from heavy vehicles, and no disruption of traffic from construction activities. No adverse effects on transportation would result under this alternative.

4.10.2.2 Alternatives 2, 4, 5, 5A and 5B

4.10.2.2.1 Impact: Temporary Increase in Traffic on Existing Roadways during Project Construction and OMRR&R Activities

The alternatives would create a less than significant increase in vehicle volume around the study area. The arterial streets have adequate capacity to accommodate this temporary, short-term increase in project-related traffic. However, should construction or OMRR&R activities cause lane or road or sidewalk closures or detours, the following mitigation measure would be implemented to reduce impacts.

Mitigation Measure T-1: Implement Traffic Control Plan

This work shall consist of traffic control, and use of devices and flagmen or pilot cars in accordance with Section 401 of the City of Phoenix Supplements and the City of Phoenix Traffic Barricade Manual, dated 1998.

All traffic and/or traffic control devices on this project shall be provided, maintained and/or controlled as specified in the City of Phoenix Traffic Barricade Manual, dated 1998.

Permission to restrict city streets, sidewalks and alleys (street closure permits) shall be requested as specified in Section III of the City of Phoenix Traffic Barricade Manual.

Unless otherwise provided for in the following General Traffic Regulations, all traffic on this project shall be regulated as specified in Section IV of the City of Phoenix Traffic Barricade Manual.

4.10.2.2.2 Impact: Potential Damage to Roadway Surfaces during Project Construction

Increased truck traffic associated with construction activities could result in damage to the roadway surface on roadways used as haul routes. This is a potentially significant impact that is avoidable with mitigation.

Rio Salado Oeste 4-35 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement Mitigation Measure T-2: Repair Damaged Roadways

The Corps or its contractors shall repair any damage to existing roadways caused as a result of construction activities for this project. Repair work shall be coordinated with the agencies having jurisdiction over each roadway and with the intent to return the roadways to the conditions existing immediately prior to the commencement of the project.

4.10.2.2.3 Impact: Generation of Additional Vehicle Trips by Recreationists

Due to the location of the project and the intimacy of the expected recreation and education experience, it is projected that most visitors would arrive by private vehicle. Based on historical data maintained by the City of Phoenix for resource-based recreational sites, it is estimated that 2.75 visitors arrive in each private vehicle. Additionally, an estimated one visitor per four vehicles arrives at a site by an alternate mode of transportation including bicycle, foot traffic and public transportation. Prime recreation time is defined as weekends and holidays, while non- primetime is weekdays. Therefore, the greater number of recreationist trips would occur during off-peak hours outside of the weekday commute times. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated on traffic and circulation.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.

4.11 LAND USE

4.11.1 APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

Each of the alternatives includes a range of approaches to provide ecological restoration and recreation within the project implementation area. Potential impacts are identified by evaluating each alternative against existing land use patterns within the project area. The alternatives are also analyzed regarding their compatibility with existing plans and policies that are relevant to the project area. Impacts that would result in inconsistencies with existing land use patterns or result in land being degraded so that it cannot be used for current or planned use are considered significant.

4.11.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

4.11.2.1 No-Action Alternative

Under the No-Action Alternative, land use conditions would continue to change at rapid rates. The Maricopa Association of Governments Regional Transportation Plan (November, 25, 2003) states that Maricopa County is projected to double in population over the 2000 base population, with an anticipated total of 6.24 million people. This means that the region will experience a growth of approximately one million people during each decade. By 2025, the largest Municipal Planning Area – Phoenix, will contain 2.1 million persons. By 2025, Maricopa County is projected to nearly double its reported 2000 employment total. This means that employment within the region will grow at a number of approximately 575,000 jobs each decade.

Rio Salado Oeste 4-36 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement Therefore, growth and land use change would impact the surrounding Rio Salado Oeste area, but there would be no short-term impacts from construction of Oeste to affect adjacent land. Land use and planning policies to enhance and restore biological habitat and riparian areas and provide flood damage reduction and recreation opportunities in open space areas would not be fully realized.

4.11.2.2 Alternatives 2, 4, 5, 5A and 5B

4.11.2.2.1 Impact: Temporary Adverse Effects on Land Use during Project Construction

The environmental restoration is expected to be beneficial and not have any substantial adverse effects. However, the nearby land uses in the study area could experience temporary adverse effects associated with construction activities. There is on-going low- to medium-density residential construction in the study area. Construction and later OMRR&R activities could disturb that development with brief road blocks or partial closures, but the effects would be too short-term to significantly impact other construction. Most of the impacts on land use are within the 100-year floodplain. This land all ready has large restrictions on use. Converting the area into an ecosystem restoration site would not have any adverse effects on land use.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.

4.11.2.2.2 Impact: Compatibility with Land Use Plans and Policies of Local Government Jurisdictions

Jurisdictional plans impacting the study are the Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan, Estrella Planning Area Land Use Plan and the Laveen Planning Area Land Use Plan. The Salt River is identified as a “Proposed Open Space” within these plans. Proposed Open Spaces are intended to establish an interconnected system of protected natural open spaces, corresponding to regionally significant mountains, rivers, washes, upland desert, and cultural resources in unincorporated areas of the County (Maricopa County, 1997). In addition, the City of Phoenix Land Use Plan calls for enhancement and restoration of biological habitat and riparian areas and to provide flood damage reduction and recreation opportunities. Implementation of the project would be compatible with local government jurisdictional plans.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.

4.11.2.2.3 Impact: Long-Term Beneficial Impact on Land Use Experience

Rapid population growth is anticipated for the City of Phoenix and Maricopa County as a whole. Significant development of residential and non-residential land will be required to accommodate the projected growth. In the study area, existing land uses are primarily comprised of agriculture, industrial and low-density residential. It is anticipated that additional low- to medium-density residential development will take place due to the close proximity of the area to the City core. Existing vacant lots and agricultural land will likely be converted to residential uses. All five action alternatives would develop the river corridor in a manner that does not contribute significant traffic, noise, limited vistas or other effects of development. Therefore, the

Rio Salado Oeste 4-37 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement river corridor’s transformation into a low-use restoration area would make it easier for the area to absorb the adjacent higher-use development. Likewise, urban demand for water supply will not affect the Oeste project benefits because there is a committed supply of effluent for this project.

In addition, the project provides opportunities for current City of Phoenix land use and planning policies to be realized. Such policies call for enhancement and restoration of biological habitat and riparian areas and to provide flood damage reduction and recreation opportunities.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.

4.12 RECREATION

4.12.1 APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

Each of the action alternatives utilizes a variety of components to provide ecological restoration, recreation, and incidental flood damage reduction within the project area. Potential impacts to recreation resources are identified by evaluating each of the alternatives against the existing recreation features within the project area. Alternatives are also analyzed regarding their compatibility with existing recreation plans and policies that are relevant to the project area. Impacts to recreation resources within the project implementation area would be significant if the proposed project is found to be inconsistent with current recreation plans and/or policies.

4.12.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

4.12.2.1 No-Action Alternative

Under the No-Action Alternative, recreation conditions would stay substantially the same. There would be no short-term impacts from construction that would affect adjacent recreation activities. Recreational experiences would also not be enhanced. Land use and planning policies to enhance and restore biological habitat and riparian areas and provide flood damage reduction and recreation opportunities in open space areas would not be fully realized.

4.12.2.2 Alternatives 2, 4, 5, 5A and 5B

4.12.2.2.1 Impact: Temporary Adverse Effects on Recreation during Project Construction and OMRR&R Activities

The existing streambed consists primarily of a dry wash with no recreational facilities or public access for recreation. Therefore, project construction would have no impact on current recreation. OMRR&R activities may briefly affect recreational use. However, impacts would occur in small, localized areas in a way that would have little impact on use.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.

Rio Salado Oeste 4-38 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement 4.12.2.2.2 Impact: Long-Term Beneficial Effect on Recreational Experience

The project would include trails, scenic overlooks, interpretive centers, gathering areas, parking facilities, restrooms and shade structures. Activities along the project would include bird watching, hiking, biking, equestrian uses, wildlife observation and fishing. Completion of this project would also facilitate connectivity between two other restoration projects on the Salt River: Tres Rios and Rio Salado Phoenix. Given that no current regulated or designated recreational uses exist on this reach of the Salt River, implementation of this project would bring significant beneficial effects to the recreational experience.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.

4.13 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY

4.13.1 APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

The proposed project is intended to enhance the ecological health of Salt River and its related habitats. As a result of the project, there may be potential impacts associated with public health and safety. Impacts are evaluated by estimating the potential effects of each alternative against existing environmental conditions and reviewing potential public health and safety issues in the project study area.

4.13.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

4.13.2.1 No-Action Alternative

Under the No-Action Alternative, the potential health and safety benefits associated with the other alternatives would not be realized. Safety threats associated with flood hazards would continue to exist for properties within the floodplain. Benefits to soil and water quality would not occur. Mosquitoes are currently a potential problem in the area. Implementation of the No- Action Alternative would not provide vector control beyond existing levels and, thus, existing vector problems would persist.

4.13.2.2 Alternatives 2, 4, 5, 5A and 5B

4.13.2.2.1 Impact: Temporary Construction-Related Water Quality Impacts

Project-related construction activities in the river channel could cause temporary water quality impacts because disturbed and eroded soil, petroleum products, and miscellaneous construction wastes or unearthed waste debris may be discharged into receiving surface waters and leached into subsurface waters. Soil and associated contaminants that enter stream channels can increase turbidity, stimulate the growth of algae, increase sedimentation of aquatic habitat, and introduce compounds that are toxic to aquatic organisms. If released into water sources, construction materials such as fuels, oils, paints, and concrete are potentially harmful to fish and other aquatic life. The extent of potential environmental effects depends on several factors. Some examples

Rio Salado Oeste 4-39 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement of factors that would lead to adverse environmental effects are: highly erodible soil types; poor construction practices; large disturbed area under construction for a long period of time; precipitation during large excavations or soil transport periods, and; construction proximal to drainage channels. Implementation of Best Management Practices would reduce construction impacts to water quality to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation Measure PHS-1: Implement HTRW Management Measures

Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be implemented during construction. Some examples of these BMPs follow. Construction activities should be conducted in the dry weather season to the extent possible to minimize exposure of disturbed construction sites to rainfall and stormwater runoff. The general contractor for the project would prepare and implement standard grading and erosion control measures (e.g., management, structural, and vegetative controls) to minimize exposure of soil that may contribute to contaminated runoff. BMPs must be implemented before predicted rain events. In addition, the construction contractor would implement standard hazardous materials management practices to reduce the possibility of chemical spills or releases of contaminants in runoff.

4.13.2.2.2 Impact: Temporary Construction and OMRR&R-Related Area Safety Issues

Project construction and restoration activities proposed under this alternative include grading, site preparation for vegetation planting, irrigation system establishment, channel excavation and reshaping, and channel terracing. These activities, as well as operations and maintenance (OMRR&R) activities such as sediment removal, would result in potential safety hazards. These hazards would be minimized with the implementation of the following mitigation measure.

Mitigation Measure PHS-2: Implement Construction and OMRR&R Management Measures

The Contractor shall provide temporary fencing, barricades, and/or guards, as required, to provide protection in the interest of public safety. Whenever the Contractor’s operations create a condition hazardous to the public, he shall furnish at his own expense and without cost to the Government, such flagmen and guards as are necessary to give adequate warning to the public of any dangerous conditions to be encountered and he shall furnish, erect, or maintain such fences, barricades, lights, signs and other devices as are necessary to prevent accidents and avoid damage or injury to the public. Flagmen and guards, while on duty and assigned to give warning and safety devices shall conform to applicable city, county, and state requirements.

Should the Contractor appear to be neglectful or negligent in furnishing adequate warning and protection measures, the Contracting Officer may direct attention to the existence of a hazard and the necessary warning and protective measures shall be furnished and installed by the Contractor without additional cost to the Government. Should the Contracting Officer point out the inadequacy of warning and protective measures, such action of the Contracting Officer shall not relieve the Contractor from any responsibility for public safety or abrogate his obligation to furnish and pay for those devices. The installation of any general illumination shall not relieve the Contractor of his responsibility for furnishing and maintaining any protective facility.

Rio Salado Oeste 4-40 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement 4.13.2.2.3 Impact: Potential Increases in Mosquito Breeding

Increased standing water would potentially attract mosquitoes that may be carriers of serious diseases including West Nile virus and various strains of encephalitis. The outfall wetlands would be designed to maintain flowing water under most conditions, and other areas with increased water supply would be designed to minimize standing water. Under some conditions, standing or slow-moving water may be unavoidable, for example, in the borrow pit lakes during drought periods when inflow is minimum or absent. A vector control program for these area would probably be necessary to protect public health.

Mitigation Measure PHS-3: Monitoring Plan, Natural Controls and Chemical Pesticides

Chemical pesticides would be avoided in favor of natural controls because chemical pesticides often adversely affect desirable fish and wildlife species, as well as humans. Restored habitat would attract some natural predators of mosquitoes, including insects such as water striders, giant water bugs, common backswimmers, dragonflies, and water boatman. Vertebrate predators, including barn swallows, black phoebes, song sparrows, and several species of bats would also potentially populate the habitat following restoration. Native insect and vertebrate predators of mosquitoes could be introduced to the habitat, but unless conditions are optimum, populations may not remain adequate for long-term mosquito control.

Large populations of mosquitoes often occur even in relatively undisturbed habitats where water is present. The Gila topminnow (Poeciliopsis occidentalis occidentalis), a small native fish that is federally listed as Endangered, may effectively control mosquitoes. Special protocols would be required to introduce this species to the project area due to its endangered status, but Gila topminnow may be a good option in areas where non-native predators (including mosquito fish) are not present. Western mosquito fish (Gambusia affinis), a species of small fish native to the United States from eastern Mississippi to eastern Texas that feeds on mosquito larvae, are commonly stocked in ponds as an efficient and economical biological method of mosquito abatement. Mosquito fish also consume eggs and fry of native fish, as well as desirable insect species, which would be detrimental to native fish populations. In the borrow pit lakes, where fish populations consist primarily of introduced game species, mosquito fish may be an acceptable biological control, provided that they are confined to the lakes. A bacterium, Bacillus thuringensis var israeliensis, which is specific to mosquito larvae but harmless to most other organisms, is another effective biological control that may be compatible with ecological restoration.

In addition to the above possible measures, Maricopa County has a routine monitoring program county wide and a vector control program to help reduce the risk of mosquito-borne disease. Maricopa County Vector Control monitors mosquitoes along the Salt River primarily during the summer months. Maricopa County Department of Environmental Services, Vector Control Division and the Arizona State Department of Health Services, Office of Infectious Disease Services, Vector-Borne and Zoonotic Disease Section are the agencies primarily responsible for control of mosquitoes and other animal vectors in the project area.

Rio Salado Oeste 4-41 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement 4.13.2.2.4 Impact: Beneficial Decrease in Illegal/Unauthorized Activities in the Project Area

The existing streambed consists primarily of a dry wash with no recreational facilities or public access for recreation. Currently, a number of illegal or unauthorized activities occur in the project study area, primarily dumping of refuse, unauthorized firearm discharges, and short-term habitation of certain portions of the project implementation area by transient persons. After this project is completed, increased use of the area by recreationists and maintenance staff would tend to decrease illegal activities in the area because of increased patrolling of the area by the city and use by the public. Project lands will be acquired by local jurisdictions who will become responsible for policing these areas and protecting recreationists from illegal activities. This is a beneficial impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation required.

4.13.2.2.5 Impact: Potential Increases in Public Access and Use

Growth projections show that the non-residential land around the Oeste PIP will be required to accommodate the county’s projected growth. In the study area, existing land uses are primarily comprised of agriculture, industrial and low-density residential. It is anticipated that additional low- to medium-density residential development will take place due to the close proximity of the area to the City core. Existing vacant lots and agricultural land will likely be converted to residential uses. This increase in population combined with the increase in recreational features that will be provided by Rio Salado Oeste will increase the number of visitors to this area of the Salt River. An increase in the number of visitors could potentially increase the amount of trash, crime and vandalism to the property. We suspect that these occurrences will be minor due to regulated points of entry, the presence of maintenance and park ranger staff, and regulated hours of operation.

Rio Salado Oeste 4-42 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement CHAPTER 5 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS

This section is included in the EIS to address the cumulative impacts associated with the proposed project. Cumulative effects result from the proposed action’s incremental impacts when these impacts are added to the impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of the agency or person who undertakes them. Cumulative effects can result from individually minor, but collectively significant actions that take place over time (Bass, Herson & Bogdan, 2001). A cumulative impact, then, is the additive effect of all projects in the same geographic area. In addition, federal regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508) require that the cumulative impacts of a proposed action be assessed.

5.1 PROJECTS WITHIN POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE IMPACT ZONE

For the purpose of this analysis, the Rio Salado Oeste cumulative impact zone is identified as the Salt River corridor stretching from Granite Reef Dam to the confluence of the Agua Fria and Salt Rivers. Five projects, four upstream and one downstream, are located along the Salt River in Maricopa County. Upstream of the proposed Rio Salado Oeste Project on the Salt River are Va Shly’ay Akimel, Rio Salado Tempe, Tempe Town Lake, and Rio Salado Phoenix. Directly downstream of Rio Salado Oeste is the Tres Rios project. The Rio Salado Pathway project also plays a key role in the recreation corridor that is developing along the river. Information on these projects is provided below. These projects are expected to span nineteen years (1998- 2017).

5.1.1 VA SHLY’AY AKIMEL

Va Shly’ay Akimel (Vash) is a primary purpose ecosystem restoration project with proposed incidental benefits of passive and active recreation and aesthetics improvements. The project is in the pre-engineering design (PED) phase, with construction estimated to occur from 2009 to 2017. The project is a collaborative effort of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community (SRPMIC), and the City of Mesa. The study area includes portions of the SRPMIC and the City of Mesa. The study area is approximately 14 miles long, extending along the Salt River between the Pima Freeway (SR 101) and Granite Reef Dam. The area is approximately two miles wide and encompasses approximately 17,345 acres. The alternative to be constructed includes channelization, installation of a grade control structure, removal of invasive plant species, irrigation via a surface braided irrigation network, irrigation from a new groundwater well and from effluent, the creation of wetlands features, the establishment of new cottonwood, mesquite and Sonoran Desert habitats. A total of 1,712 new habitat acres are expected to be created, in addition to approximately five miles of multi-use recreation paths.

Rio Salado Oeste 5-1 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement 5.1.2 RIO SALADO TEMPE

Another primary purpose ecosystem restoration plan, Rio Salado Tempe, also includes incidental benefits of passive and active recreation. This Corps of Engineers/City of Tempe project is divided into three sections around Tempe Town Lake: Indian Bend Wash, a tributary of the Salt River located between Rural Rd and McClintock Rd, and the portions of the Salt River streambed directly upstream and downstream of the Tempe Town Lake Dams. In total, this 1.2- river mile project planned to restore 169 acres of habitat. To date, construction has been completed on the Indian Bend Wash section, which provides about 41 restored acres. The upstream segment includes roughly 0.5 miles of recreational path. The downstream section is currently in construction and expected to be complete by mid 2007. The upstream section is scheduled to complete construction about a year later in mid 2008.

5.1.3 TEMPE TOWN LAKE

Tempe Town Lake is entirely a City of Tempe project having two primary purposes – economic development and recreation. Incidental benefits include aesthetic improvements and passive restoration both upstream and downstream of the dams. The 220-acre lake was completed in 1999, though construction of resorts, restaurants, retail shops, business parks and condos still continues around the lake. The primary recreation components, which have all ready been constructed, include the 25-acre Tempe Beach Park on the south bank, five miles of paved multi- use paths along the north and south banks, and a marina on the north bank.

5.1.4 RIO SALADO PATHWAY

The Rio Salado Pathway (Tempe to Phoenix) is an accessible, shared-use path proposed along the south bank of the Rio Salado beginning at Priest Drive in Tempe and ending at approximately 28th Street in Phoenix. Through support of both the City Councils of Tempe and Phoenix, and the Regional Council of Maricopa Association of Governments, $150,000 was approved to conduct a feasibility study on the shared-use trail and public amenities for the nearly four mile gap between Rio Salado Tempe and Rio Salado Phoenix. Now that the study is completed, the cities of Tempe and Phoenix are currently seeking a combination of private and public funding to construct Rio Salado Pathway (City of Tempe, Tempe Town Lake website, 2006). No estimate for construction completion currently exists.

5.1.5 RIO SALADO PHOENIX

Rio Salado Phoenix extends from 28th Street west to 19th Avenue, which is the upstream end of the Rio Salado Oeste study area. This Corps of Engineers/City of Phoenix collaboration has the primary purpose of ecosystem restoration with incidental benefits of recreation and aesthetic improvements. The project includes approximately 595 acres of restoration, and ten miles of recreational multi-use paths. It includes construction of a low-flow channel in the river bottom, and establishment of open water, wetland marsh, cottonwood/willow, open edges, and mesquite habitat on the river bottom and overbanks. The recreational elements associated with this project would include trails, scenic overlooks, interpretive centers, gathering areas, parking, restrooms, and shade structures. Construction was completed in 2005 along the riverbed from 16th Street to

Rio Salado Oeste 5-2 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement 19th Avenue. The final phase of this project, 16th Street to 28th Street, is scheduled to be completed in 2007.

5.1.6 TRES RIOS

Tres Rios is one of the more important projects when analyzing cumulative impacts for Rio Salado Oeste. This is because the two projects are contiguous, and construction is expected to occur consecutively. Tres Rios is estimated to finish construction in 2010 and Rio Salado Oeste is not expected to begin construction until 2010. However, there is a slight chance that the construction phases of the two projects may overlap due to the uncertainty of future appropriations. Therefore, a slightly more in-depth analysis of Tres Rios is included below.

Tres Rios is a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/City of Phoenix ecosystem restoration project that extends along the Salt River from the west end of Rio Salado Oeste at 83rd Avenue downstream to the Agua Fria River. The study efforts were directed toward improving and increasing fish and wildlife habitat values and diversity for Threatened and Endangered species, as well as providing flood damage reduction, and recreation. Potential incidental benefits are associated with water quality and supply.

The selected plan includes a six mile long flood control levee, a 184-acre regulating wetland that would equalize diurnal variations in discharges from the 91st Avenue treatment plant, a 300- million gallon per day pump station to convey the flow from the treatment plant to the regulating wetland, 128 acres of wetland along the north bank of the Salt River, a pipeline in the overbank wetland that would lead to 38 acres of riparian corridor, 134 acres of open water marsh, grading the Salt River to convey surface water to supply 69 acres of riparian habitat, and a dewatering well from the treatment plant that will deliver enough water to support about 206 acres of open water marsh and about 16 acres of riparian corridor on the south bank of the Salt River. In all, approximately 775 acres of habitat will be restored and an 11 mile long recreation path will be created. Construction on the levee began in 2005, and is scheduled for completion in 2008. The final phase: “Pump Stations and Piping to Wetlands” is estimated to begin late 2007 and finish in 2010. However, as with all projects, construction continuation is always subject to the availability of future appropriations.

Rio Salado Oeste 5-3 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Table 5.1-1. Summary of Projects within the Potential Cumulative Impact Zone

Salt River- Approx. Approx. Estimated Project Name Location Approx. Acres to be Recreation Years in River Miles Restored Path Miles Construction Va Shly’ay Granite Reef Dam 14 1,712 5 2009 - 2017 Akimel to SR-101 Indian Bend Wash, W. of McClintock Rio Salado Dr. to Town Lake 1 169 0.5 2003 - 2007 Tempe East Dam, and West Dam to Priest Dr. W. of McClintock Tempe Town Dr to East of Priest 3 - 5 1998 - 2004 Lake Dr. Rio Salado Priest Dr. to 28th 3 - 3 TBD Pathway Street Rio Salado 28th St. to 19th Ave. 5 595 10 2001 - 2007 Phoenix Rio Salado 19th Ave. to 83rd 8 1,528 16 2010 - 2017 Oeste Ave. 83rd Ave to W. of Tres Rios Agua Fria 8 775 11 2005 - 2010 Confluence Granite Reef Dam TOTALS to W. of Agua Fria 42 4,734 58.5 1998 - 2017 Confluence

5.2 SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS BY RESOURCE AREA

Thresholds and criteria used to determine the significance of effects vary depending on the type of resource being analyzed. An analysis of cumulative impacts to each of the resource areas is presented below.

5.2.1 GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY

The projects that would impact the topography and soils within the Salt River stream bed are Va Shly’ay Akimel, Tempe Town Lake, Rio Salado (Tempe and Phoenix reaches), and Tres Rios. With the exception of the Tempe Town Lake dams, the projects involve reshaping the channel in a way that prevents erosion and sedimentation problems. Several of the projects include active bank stabilization measures, such as gabion walls and soil cement and protection for potentially disturbed roads and bridges through levees and grade control structures. The measures within

Rio Salado Oeste 5-4 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement the projects that would increase soil stabilization and address known sedimentation problem areas would create beneficial effects for the cumulative impact zone.

5.2.2 HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES

The cumulative impacts of the proposed project, in combination with the other projects along the Salt River, are not expected to produce any adverse impact to surrounding water uses or the local environment. The proposed project would not cause raised surface water elevations during flooding, or depletion of water on the project site. Cumulatively, the Corps ecosystem restoration projects will not raise the 100-year flood levels, and will slightly lower them overall. In addition, the projects have each been determined to not adversely impact groundwater levels. When examined cumulatively, the projects would not collectively result in significant adverse impacts to groundwater.

5.2.3 WATER QUALITY

The Phoenix area is serviced by a regional WWTP located at 91st Avenue and the Salt River. The plant discharges approximately 154 mgd of effluent to the Salt River. In 1995, a Tres Rios Demonstration Project was placed within the floodway of the Salt River below the 91st Avenue plant. The project provides final treatment of approximately 2 mgd of effluent within ten acres of constructed wetlands. This project is immediately downstream of the Rio Salado Oeste Study area.

Surface water from storm drains is of poor quality and is only sporadically available. The poor quality of stormwater results from land uses in the watershed, and the usually long duration between rainfall events. Neither of these factors would be affected by the ecosystem restoration projects, either individually, or considered cumulatively. Groundwater has somewhat better quality, though there are still concerns with some contaminants. The cumulative effect of the Salt River ecosystem restoration projects on groundwater quantity or quality is expected to be negligible.

In all of the ecosystem restoration projects, incidental water quality improvement would be obtained through incorporation of wetlands into the restoration plan. Effluent that would be used for these projects is of excellent water quality. Tempe Town Lake is constantly monitored and adaptively managed for water quality issues. The projects have the potential to collectively benefit water quality along the Salt River.

5.2.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

The ecosystem restoration projects have the potential to create a biologically diverse and highly functional riparian more closely resembling what once existed in the Salt River. Three conditions prevent project continuity from Granite Reef Dam to the Salt-Agua Fria River confluence: the area spanning approximately one-mile from SR101 to west of McClintock is not part of a restoration project; the Tempe Town Lake is not consistent with riparian habitat and allows for large amounts of recreation to constantly disrupt wildlife activities, and; the area from Priest Drive to 28th Street in Phoenix will not be restored to reduce the possibility of bird strikes

Rio Salado Oeste 5-5 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement with turbine engine aircraft using Sky Harbor International Airport (Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular 150/5200-33A, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants On or Near Airports, Dated July 27, 2004).

Despite these three interruptions in habitat contiguity, the Salt River would have a total of approximately 4,734 restored acres. Restoration would be continuous for approximately 21 river miles, from 28th Street to the Salt-Agua Fria River confluence with the implementation of Rio Salado Oeste. These ecosystem restoration projects would have significantly beneficial effects on biological resources. These benefits include providing biologically diverse and desirable vegetative communities, and new fish and wildlife habitat. Restored areas may include habitats with potential to support federally Threatened and Endangered species, and wildlife of special concern to the AGFD. The functional capacity of the Salt River as defined by the HGM model would also be greatly increased. Finally, newly restored riparian habitat would help to offset potentially significant adverse impacts from construction and other substantial OMRR&R measures by providing proximal habitat for mobile wildlife species to temporarily relocate.

5.2.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES

It is likely that the construction of this project would not have unavoidable significant impacts on prehistoric and historic cultural resources. In the event that any NRHP-eligible cultural resource is uncovered, compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act would be executed and Memorandums of Agreement among all stakeholders would be completed.

5.2.6 AESTHETIC RESOURCES

The Salt River has become an illegal dumping ground, home to squatters, and is also an unregulated fishing/recreation area. The streambed has been littered with construction waste, old tires, vehicles and other waste. Habitat has been of low quality and poor biodiversity. The stream banks have shown signs of erosion and degradation. These projects have already started to provide, and would continue to provide, beneficial cumulative impacts on the Salt River. Tempe Town Lake was able to make the area aesthetically pleasing enough to draw large amounts of developmental economic resources. The City of Phoenix concurrently planned the “Beyond the Banks” project, which aimed at redeveloping the area outside Rio Salado Phoenix to a more aesthetically pleasing commercial and residential zone to better coincide with the improvements to the Salt River.

5.2.7 AIR QUALITY

Based on the air quality analysis presented in Appendix D and Section 4.7.2 above, it has been shown that implementation of Alternative 5A would not have a significant impact on air quality. However, since there may be multiple construction projects in progress at any given time, the cumulative impact of these projects on air quality needs to be considered. Since Maricopa County is in a serious non-attainment area for PM-10, the most critical cumulative impact consists of PM-10 emissions. Cumulative contributions to the Maricopa County PM-10 and ozone nonattainment area emissions inventories by three federal ecosystem restoration projects

Rio Salado Oeste 5-6 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement along the Salt River in Maricopa County (Rio Salado Oeste, Va Shly’ay Akimel and Tres Rios) are considered below.

The Rio Salado Oeste and Va Shly’ay Akimel projects are expected to be under construction concurrently. The period of concurrent construction would run from 2010 to 2017. It is also possible that the Tres Rios project would not be completed before construction work on Rio Salado Oeste and Va Shly’ay Akimel commences in 2010. The final year of construction for Tres Rios will consist mostly of completing “punch-list” items and light construction. Nevertheless, there is a short period of time around 2010 during which all three of these projects may be under construction at the same time. The projected cumulative VOC, CO, PM-10 and NOX emissions for all three projects have been compared to the overall emissions inventories for the Maricopa County PM-10 and ozone nonattainment areas (MCESD, 2004a and 2004b). SOX emissions for Rio Salado Oeste and the PM-10 nonattainment area are included, but were not calculated for the Va Shly’ay Akimel and Tres Rios projects. These emissions are compared in Table 5.2-1.

Table 5.2-1. Comparison of Air Emissions From the Salt River Ecosystem Restoration Projects and the Maricopa County Ozone and PM-10 Nonattainment Areas

POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN (Tons/Year) Source of Emissions VOC CO PM-10 NOX SOX Va Shly’ay Akimel 5 44 23 39 -- Tres Rios 2 18 10 24 -- Rio Salado Oeste (Year 4) 1.81 11.48 61.48 27.81 2.9 Maricopa County Ozone 88,964 496,334 Nonattainment Area (2002) Maricopa County PM-10 67,893 107,503 2,341 Nonattainment Area (2002)

From the above comparison, it is apparent that even concurrent construction work on all three projects (using the highest annual emissions data for Rio Salado Oeste) would contribute less than 0.15 percent of the total PM-10 emissions for the Maricopa County PM-10 nonattainment area. Contributions to the emissions inventory for ozone precursors in the ozone nonattainment area would be negligible.

On a more local scale, the Rio Salado Oeste project would be constructed in an area that is already generating large amounts of emissions. The 2002 Periodic Emissions Inventory for Maricopa County (the last year for which a complete report is available) identifies more than 50 point sources of emissions within the 24 square mile study area. These sources include aggregate mining, retail and fueling facilities, materials handling, manufacturing, motor vehicles, trains, planes, small business and household activities, lawn mowers, and some portable equipment. Additional emissions originate from use of consumer products, road dust, farming operations, and fireplaces. Fugitive emissions from windblown disturbances, equipment leaks, and evaporative processes are also present. Finally, there are biogenic emissions from animal management operations, such as concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO’s).

Rio Salado Oeste 5-7 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement Point source emissions can be directly calculated, and estimates of area sources, nonroad mobile sources, onroad mobile sources and biogenic sources of emissions are available for both the PM- 10 and ozone nonattainment areas. However, air emissions from these various sources cannot be determined for a small portion of a nonattainment area, such as the Rio Salado Oeste study area (MCAQD, 2006). Nevertheless, it is possible to estimate air emissions from these sources by using a land size ratio between the Rio Salado study area (24 sq. mi.) and the ozone and PM-10 nonattainment areas (1,946 sq. mi. and 2,880 sq. mi., respectively). Using this methodology, it is possible to obtain a very general approximation of the emissions inventory for the Rio Salado Oeste study area (MCAQD, 2006). The air emission totals generated in this manner are summarized in Table 5.2-2.

Table 5.2-2. Approximate Air Emissions Inventory for the Rio Salado Oeste Study Area

Rio Salado Oeste Study Area VOC CO PM-10 NO SO Air Emissions (Tons/Year) X X Point Sources 100.82 51.31 191.95 43.20 27.11 All Sources 1,150.28 6,152.66 749.1 912.23 44.92 Rio Salado Oeste (Year 4) 1.81 11.48 61.48 27.81 2.9

Using this method of comparison, the highest annual emissions associated with construction of Alternative 5A (year 4 of construction) would contribute less than 10 percent of the PM-10 emissions in the immediate study area. Contributions to the local emissions inventory for VOC, CO, NOX and SOX would be negligible.

Over the longer term, construction of Alternative 5A would displace some of the activities currently generating air emissions in the study area. Emissions associated with construction of the project itself would eventually cease, with the exception of the OMRR&R activities. The ecosystem restoration work would stabilize the loose soils in the area with landscaping and irrigated vegetation. The vegetation itself would serve as a windbreak, reducing the potential for wind-blown dust (PM-10).

In summary, the Rio Salado Oeste project would not have a significant long term effect on air quality, nor would it contribute to a significant cumulative impact on air quality. It would be important for all construction activities to abide by Maricopa County Rule 310 to ensure that de minimus thresholds are not exceeded. Compliance with Maricopa County Rule 310 would be made a condition of the construction contracts, and would be enforced through weekly inspection by the Corps.

5.2.8 NOISE

Residents living adjacent to or near the Salt River in the Phoenix area are likely to be exposed to some level of noise from construction, OMRR&R, and recreational activities associated with one of the Salt River projects. The highly urbanized Salt River corridor already has moderate activity levels and many sources of ambient noise. These include highway noise, widespread construction activities not associated with ecosystem restoration, sand and gravel mining operations, and aircraft approaching and departing Sky Harbor International Airport. The

Rio Salado Oeste 5-8 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement principle sources of noise in the immediate vicinity of the Salt River are sand and gravel mining operations. These would remain the largest and most significant contributor to ambient noise along the river.

Unlike air pollution that can accumulate throughout a large area, noise attenuates as the distance from its source increases. The Salt River projects most likely to have concurrent construction periods would be Rio Salado Oeste and Va Shly ‘ay Akimel. Since these projects are located 12 river miles apart, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to ambient noise from both projects at the same time. As discussed above, there is a small chance that Tres Rios would be completing construction as Rio Salado Oeste begins construction. The final construction work on Tres Rios (improvements to the pump stations and piping water to wetlands) would be located some distance from the western end of Rio Salado Oeste. Therefore, noise generated by construction equipment on the two projects would be unlikely to have a cumulative effect.

While construction at any single location along the Salt River would occur during a relatively short period of time, OMRR&R and recreational activities would continue in perpetuity. However, these noise sources would be minor contributors to ambient noise levels along the Salt River. OMRR&R work would occur on an infrequent basis at any one location along the river. Thus, no significant cumulative impacts to noise levels would occur within the cumulative impact zone along the Salt River.

5.2.9 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC RESOURCES

The presence of Tempe Town Lake has created a highly desirable waterfront area that has spurred residential and commercial development along its banks. The City of Phoenix, through its “Beyond the Banks” program, is actively pursuing redevelopment along the Salt River corridor. These effects would be considered positive and beneficial by most people, but have a limited area of effect. In the context of Maricopa County, the Salt River ecosystem restoration projects would not have significant cumulative effects on population, housing, employment, or income.

5.2.10 TRANSPORTATION

Construction activities for the Salt River projects would cause local, temporary inconveniences for motorists utilizing roads along or crossing the Salt River. Since most of these impacts would be on surface streets, motorists would be unlikely to encounter delays associated with more than one project during their everyday activities. With the exception of additional commuter trips for construction workers, and delivery of construction materials and equipment to and from the work sites, there would be little cumulative impact on the local network of limited access highways. In the context of the traffic volume already present in Maricopa County, any cumulative impact would be inconsequential.

Long-term recreational use would generate additional vehicle trips within the cumulative impact zone. However, recreation would occur in higher volume during non-peak traffic times (i.e., week nights and weekends). Interstate highways and state routes provide limited access service throughout the zone of cumulative impacts. These freeways have numerous exits so that the

Rio Salado Oeste 5-9 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement accumulation of any additional vehicle trips by recreationists would not adversely impact any single area.

5.2.11 LAND USE

The Salt River is identified as “Proposed Open Space” on local land use maps. This designation recognizes that natural resources and open spaces are important to the quality of life in the county and, if acquired, are intended to be planned and managed to protect, maintain, and enhance their intrinsic value for recreational, aesthetic, and biological purposes. Additionally, the City of Phoenix General Plan provides that public access should be protected and preservation shall be encouraged. When combined with Dedicated Open Space lands, the Proposed Open Spaces are intended to establish an interconnected system of protected natural open spaces, corresponding to regionally significant mountains, rivers, washes, upland desert, and cultural resources in unincorporated areas of the County (Maricopa County, 1997).

The Maricopa Association of Governments Regional Transportation Plan (November, 25, 2003) states that Maricopa County is projected to double in population over the 2000 base population, with an anticipated total of 6.24 million people. This means that the region will experience a growth of approximately one million people during each decade. By 2025, the largest Municipal Planning Area – Phoenix, will contain 2.1 million persons. By 2025, Maricopa County is projected to nearly double its reported 2000 employment total. This means that employment within the region will grow at a number of approximately 575,000 jobs each decade. The river corridor’s transformation into a low-use restoration area would make it easier for the area to absorb the adjacent higher-use development.

The County’s size and environmental diversity is greater than some U.S. states, and it provides a complex natural ecosystem. As part of the overriding vision for the County, protection of the unique desert environments is among the top priorities. The Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan focuses on maintaining and improving the physical environment, natural resource conservation, and other environmental considerations. Additionally, the plan recognizes the importance of creating, improving, and conserving natural habitat and open space to increase biological diversity. River and wash policies include discouraging development within 100-year floodplains, maximizing wildlife habitat and native vegetation along waterways, and developing management principles to protect the natural riparian habitat of the region (Maricopa County, 1997). Rio Salado Oeste, when combined with the other restoration and recreation projects, collectively achieves the Proposed Open Space land use designation.

5.2.12 RECREATION

Cumulatively, the Salt River ecosystem restoration projects would create approximately 58.5- miles of recreational paths along the Salt River. Moreover, the sections from Rio Salado Tempe to Tres Rios are part of a larger 100-mile Regional Loop, a non-vehicular transportation corridor that will encircle the Phoenix metropolitan area. Therefore, the addition of Rio Salado Oeste to the other projects along the Salt River would have cumulative beneficial impacts.

Rio Salado Oeste 5-10 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement 5.2.13 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY

The Salt River corridor has become an illegal dumping ground, home to squatters, and is an unregulated fishing/recreation area. Implementation of the Salt River ecosystem restoration projects would eliminate wildcat dumping, and would create a more regulated environment for recreationists. The recreational use of the Salt River corridor is expected to increase because of an increase in development along the river corridor and increased opportunities for recreation. An increase in crime and property damage has the potential to accompany an increase in use. Therefore, the presence of park rangers and maintenance staff, regulated hours of operation and regulated points of entry would help create a river corridor that is safer for public use. Fishing opportunities in sand and gravel pits converted to riparian habitats would be lost. Addressing problems with squatters is a sensitive issue that would be more difficult to address.

Vector issues have the potential to occur wherever standing water lingers. Maricopa County has a routine monitoring program county wide, and a vector control program to help reduce the risk of mosquito-borne disease. Maricopa County Vector Control monitors mosquitoes along the Salt River primarily during the summer months. Maricopa County Department of Environmental Services, Vector Control Division and the Arizona State Department of Health Services, Office of Infectious Disease Services, Vector-Borne and Zoonotic Disease Section are the agencies primarily responsible for control of mosquitoes and other animal vectors in the project area.

The increase in wetlands and other riparian habitats would aid in removing potentially harmful pollutants from stormwater. Pollutants that are not removed or broken down have the potential to infiltrate into the groundwater supply. The Salt River projects would also ensure a hydraulically designed river channel for conveyance of flood flows, with incidental flood damage reduction benefits. The cumulative impact of the Salt River ecosystem restoration projects would be a net beneficial effect on public health and safety.

5.3 CONCLUSIONS

The Rio Salado Oeste project, in concert with the five other projects along the Salt River, would be expected to bring desirable, positive increases in desirable native vegetation, wildlife habitat, and an extended riparian corridor for the local area. Other beneficial impacts would include a decrease in erosion and sedimentation problems, potentially improved water quality through the creation of new wetlands, improved aesthetic resources, a land use that fulfills the Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan, a continuous recreation corridor, incidental flood damage reduction benefits, and increased public health and safety along the Salt River.

Rio Salado Oeste 5-11 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement CHAPTER 6 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES AND UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations (42 U.S.C. 4332; 40 CFR 1502.16) require analysis of significant irreversible and irretrievable commitments. Irreversible commitments are damages to the environment that cannot be reversed, even after the life of a project. Irretrievable commitments are those that are lost for a long period of time. This includes the use of nonrenewable resources, such as metal, wood, fuel, paper, and other natural or cultural resources. These resources are considered committed because they would be used for the proposed action when they could have been conserved or used for other purposes. Another impact that is discussed in this chapter is the unavoidable impacts of the proposed action and alternatives where no mitigation is available to offset the environmental consequences.

Long term implications of the project are to enhance the degraded riparian habitat that has diminished as a viable support system for wildlife. A commitment to an efficient utilization of natural resources would allow the historically productive habitat to be restored.

6.1 IRREVERSIBLE COMMITMENTS

A defined above, irreversible commitments made during the construction of the Rio Salado Oeste project would include air pollutant emissions. The project construction would not reach de minimus threshold levels. However, Maricopa County is a PM-10 non-attainment area. The construction of this project would add to other emissions and create an irreversible commitment to the environment.

6.2 IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS

All of the alternatives would result in the irretrievable commitment of resources such as fuel for construction vehicles and concrete for the grade control structure. Additionally, clay and stone needed to construct some project features may be imported from offsite. All of these materials are both readily available and easily generated.

Another resource this project commits that is currently available is stormwater and effluent. Stormwater currently has no other use than to be directed into the river, though effluent is also used to irrigate agricultural lands as needed. The project would commit both of these water sources to newly constructed cottonwood/willow, mesquite, scrub-shrub and wetland habitats. These resources are both readily available and easily generated, but could realistically be needed for other uses in the future if current drought conditions and population expansion continue. Dedication of this water to the Rio Salado Oeste project would create an irretrievable commitment of this nonrenewable resource.

Rio Salado Oeste 6-1 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Finally, the proposed action would commit workforce time for construction, engineering, environmental review and compliance, and for project operation, maintenance, repair, replacement and rehabilitation.

6.3 UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS

This Statement finds that implementation of the Rio Salado Oeste Project is not anticipated to result in any unavoidable significant impacts. This finding includes potential impacts on prehistoric and historic cultural resources.

Rio Salado Oeste 6-2 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement

CHAPTER 7 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE

The Rio Salado Oeste project would comply with several major state and federal laws, as described below:

7.1 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA) OF 1969, as amended

NEPA requires that environmental consequences and project alternatives be considered before a decision is made to implement a federal project. NEPA establishes requirements for preparation of an EIS for projects potentially having significant environmental impacts. This EIS has been prepared in accordance with the requirements set forth in Section 102 of NEPA, the CEQ Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR 1500 et seq.), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulation 200-2-2, Procedures for Implementing NEPA, (33 CFR, parts 230 and 325). Reasonable alternatives have been considered during the planning process. Potential environmental effects have been included in the evaluation of the proposed project actions, and all procedural review requirements of the aforementioned rules and regulations would have been met as part of the EIS process.

7.2 CLEAN AIR ACT, as amended, 1990

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is involved in local air quality planning through the federal Clean Air Act, as amended, 1990. Air quality impacts of each alternative considered at Rio Salado Oeste project fall under both federal and state conformity regulation. In Arizona, the federal conformity regulation in 40 CFR Part 93, Subpart B has been adopted by reference in the Arizona Administrative Code, Section R18-2-1438. Based on the air quality analysis described in the FEIS, the total emissions of each applicable criteria pollutant are below de minimus levels as prescribed in 40 CFR 93.153(b). As a result, the General Conformity Rule does not apply and no further analysis or determination is required. This project is expected to comply with the Clean Air Act, as amended, 1990.

7.3 CLEAN WATER ACT OF 1977

The Clean Water Act is the principal law governing pollution control and water quality of the Nation’s waterways. The objective of the Act is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters (33 U.S.C 1251). Each action alternative would require the discharge of fill material into Waters of the United States. A jurisdictional delineation of Waters of the U.S. has been performed for the project implementation area. A 404(b)(1) evaluation has been prepared and is included in Appendix A of the EIS. The District Commander will recommend an exemption from the requirement to obtain State water quality certification under Section 404(r) of the Clean Water Act.

Rio Salado Oeste 7-1 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement

7.4 ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT (ESA) OF 1973, as amended

The project is in compliance with the Endangered Species Act. This Act states that various species of fish, wildlife, and plants in the United States have been rendered extinct or depleted in numbers so that they are in danger of or threatened with extinction, or are of aesthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value to the United States. The purposes of the Act are to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered and threatened species depend may be conserved and to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species.

In accordance with Section 7(a)(2) and 7(c), the Corps requested information on threatened and endangered species in the study area in a letter to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in December 2004. FWS responded in a March 22, 2004 letter with a reference to the Internet web page http://arizonaes.fws.gov where the Arizona Ecological Field Services Office has posted lists for state of Arizona by County. FWS assigned consultation number 02-21-04-I-0137 to this project. Copies of correspondence and the Maricopa County species information (downloaded from the Internet) are included in Appendix B. As FWS noted in their letter, the species on the county list do not necessarily occur in the study area. The species on the list have been evaluated for potential impact in the EIS. A federal agency is required to consult with FWS pursuant to Section 7 of the Act if it determines that an action may affect a listed species. The Corps has determined that the proposed action will either not affect or is not likely to adversely affect listed species. On August 7, 2006, the Corps received a concurrence letter from the USFWS stating that the this project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the species of concern.

7.5 BALD AND GOLDEN EAGLE PROTECTION ACT OF 1940, as amended (16 U.S.C. 668)

This FEIS addresses the potential for this project to affect the bald eagle. No take of bald or golden eagles, alive or dead, or any part, nest, or egg thereof, is anticipated, regardless of which alternative is selected. All five action alternatives are expected to comply with the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.

7.6 FISH AND WILDLIFE COORDINATION ACT OF 1958, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661)

The project alternatives are in compliance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. In response to the requirements of the Act, the Corps has and will continue to coordinate with both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD). As part of this coordination, the USFWS provided a Planning Aid Letter on June 21, 2002, and a Coordination Act Report on June 20, 2005. These documents provide recommendations for alternative formulation and future OMRR&R activities, and state that the USFWS is unaware of any federally listed Threatened or Endangered species within the project area.

Rio Salado Oeste 7-2 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Both agencies participated as members of the HGM team, and the USFWS also conducted soil, water, and fish tissue analyses. The DEIS was sent to the USFWS and the AGFD during the public review period.

7.7 MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT OF 1994, as amended

This project complies with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which provides legal protection for almost all breeding bird species occurring in the United States. The intent of the Act is to eliminate any commercial market for migratory birds, feathers, or bird parts. This document addresses the potential of the alternatives of the project components to affect migratory birds. The alternatives would not include the taking, killing, or possession of any migratory birds. In addition, the project would not facilitate the commercial market for any bird species.

7.8 NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT

An archeological field survey of the Area of Potential Effect (APE) would need to be conducted in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (36 CFR 800). If cultural resources were to be discovered during construction and could not be avoided, work would be suspended in that area until the finds are evaluated for eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). If resources were determined to be NRHP-eligible and avoidance is not feasible, further mitigation measures would be detailed in a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between all necessary parties, including the SHPO, the City of Phoenix, and the tribes. These mitigation measures would include field surveys, testing, and data recovery. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation would be provided the opportunity to comment in accordance with 36 CFR 800.11.

7.9 EXECUTIVE ORDER 11988, FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT, MAY 24, 1977, as amended

Under this Executive Order, the Corps must take action to avoid development in the base floodplain (100-year) unless it is the only practicable alternative to reduce hazards and risks associated with floods; to minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health, and welfare; and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial value of the base floodplain. The project area is located entirely within the Salt River floodplain. The hydrologic and hydraulic analyses included as Appendix A to the Feasibility Report show that implementation of Alternative 5A would not cause a rise in water surface elevations during the 100-year flood. Incidental flood damage reduction benefits would occur if Alternative 5A was constructed. The project is in compliance with this Executive Order.

Rio Salado Oeste 7-3 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement

7.10 EXECUTIVE ORDER 11990, PROTECTION OF WETLANDS, 1977

In developing alternatives, the Corps considered the effects of the project on the survival and quality of wetlands. Projects are to “...avoid to the extent possible the long- and short-term adverse impacts associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands and to avoid direct or indirect support of new construction in wetlands wherever there is a practicable alternative....” Since it is necessary to reconstruct the entire Salt River channel to implement any one of the action alternatives, avoidance of wetlands is not practicable. Essentially all wetlands within the project implementation area would be impacted by construction of Alternative 5A. However, a much larger acreage of higher quality, more sustainable wetlands would be created. There would be a short term adverse effect on wetlands until the benefits associated with the project begin to accrue. The overall effect of this project on wetlands would be beneficial.

7.11 EXECUTIVE ORDER 12898, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

On February 11, 1994, President Clinton signed an “Executive Order on Federal Action to address Environmental Justice in Minority Population and Low-Income Populations. This Order is designed to focus federal attention on actions that affect environmental and human health conditions in minority and low-income communities. The proposed project would not adversely affect minority populations or low income populations. This project would provide a geographic benefit to the area surrounding the Salt River.

7.12 ARIZONA GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ACT

The Arizona Groundwater Management Act was passed by the Arizona Legislature in 1980. This Act created Active Management Areas (AMAs) overseen by Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR). ADWR has identified the groundwater basin underlying lower Salt River Valley as the Phoenix Active Management Area. The Phoenix AMA comprises two distinct but interconnected alluvial groundwater basins: West Salt River Valley and East Salt River Valley (Section 3.2.2). The management goal of the Phoenix AMA is to attain “safe yield” by 2025. “Safe yield” means that ground-water withdrawals are balanced with natural and artificial recharge within the AMA. This is to be achieved by implementing water conservation, utilizing renewable water resources such as Colorado River water and effluent, retiring agriculture with advancing urbanization, and by purchasing and extinguishing private groundwater rights. Regardless of the water sources utilized, any alternative implemented would be expected to comply with the Arizona Groundwater Management Act.

7.13 AQUIFER PROTECTION PERMITS

The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) administers an Aquifer Protection Permit (APP) program to safeguard the groundwater supply from pollutants that come from an identifiable source. Organizations or individuals may be required to obtain an APP if they own or operate a facility that discharges a pollutant directly to an aquifer, to the land surface, or to the Rio Salado Oeste 7-4 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement area between an aquifer and the land surface (the vadose zone) when it is likely that the pollutant will reach an aquifer (ADEQ, 2006). The APP program includes provisions for exemptions or non-applicability. An APP may be needed from ADEQ prior to project implementation.

7.14 ARIZONA NATIVE PLANT LAW

The Arizona Department of Agriculture enforces the Arizona Native Plant Law. The law provides varying levels of protection for most of the plants native to the state. Landowners have the right to destroy or remove native plants growing on their land, but 20 to 60 days prior to the removal of any protected native plants, landowners are required to notify the Arizona Department of Agriculture and to obtain permits or tags where applicable. The proposed alternatives would increase the number and diversity of native plants within the project while greatly reducing the number of non-native plants.

7.15 ARIZONA EXECUTIVE ORDER 91-6, PROTECTION OF RIPARIAN AREAS

Under this executive order, the Governor of Arizona has established state policy: • To recognize that the protection and restoration of riparian areas are of critical importance to the state; • To actively encourage and develop management practices that will result in maintenance of existing riparian areas and restoration of degraded riparian areas; • To promote public awareness through the development of educational programs of the benefits and values of riparian areas and the need for their protection and careful management; • To seek and support cooperative efforts and local group and citizen involvement in the protection, maintenance and restoration of riparian areas; • To actively encourage the preservation, maintenance, and restoration of instream flows throughout the state; and that any loss or degradation of riparian areas will be balanced by restoration or enhancement of other riparian areas of equal values and functions.

The proposed project is in compliance with this Executive Order.

Rio Salado Oeste 7-5 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement

CHAPTER 8 MITIGATION MEASURES

Chapters 4 through 7 address impacts related to the proposed project implementation and future maintenance. Mitigation measures are developed for each resource to minimize project-related impacts. The following explanation details required mitigation measures for Alternative 5A, the recommended plan. For a complete comparison of mitigation measures for each alternative, please refer to Table ES-2.

8.1 GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY

No mitigation required.

8.2 HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES

No mitigation required.

8.3 WATER QUALITY

In terms of water quality, the awarded contractor would need to prepare a project-specific Notice of Intent (NOI) and a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPP) for construction activities. In addition, it should be noted that on November 16, 1990, EPA published regulations under the NPDES program that defined one facet of the phrase “stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity” as being discharges from construction activities (including clearing, grading and excavation activities) that result in the disturbance of five or more acres of total land area, including smaller areas that are part of a larger common plan of development or sale (40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(x)). These are commonly referred to as Phase I construction activities. ADEQ is issuing the construction general permit that authorizes the discharge of pollutants in stormwater discharges associated with construction activity. The AZPDES rules found in the Arizona Administrative Code (A.A.C.) R18-9-A905 incorporate these and other NPDES federal regulations, by reference.

The regulation entitled “National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System – Regulation for Revision of the Water Pollution Control Program Addressing Stormwater Discharges” (64 FR 68722) was published by EPA on December 8, 1999. This regulation, which is considered Phase II of the stormwater program, expands the existing NPDES stormwater program to address discharges that result in land disturbance of equal to or greater than one and less than five acres or less than one acre if part of a larger common plan of development or sale. The Stormwater Phase II Rule automatically designates these small sites; however, this rule allows for the exclusion of certain sources from the national program based on a demonstration of the lack of impact on water quality, as well as the inclusion of others based on a higher likelihood of localized adverse impact on water quality. Exclusion from the program is available through waivers to operators of small construction activity who certify for one of the available waivers. Rio Salado Oeste 8-1 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement

There may be confusion about permitting requirements for sites that are part of a larger common plan of development or sale. All large construction activity, regulated under 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(x), is required to obtain coverage under a stormwater permit including sites disturbing less than five acres that are part of a larger common plan of development or sale that has the potential to disturb five or more acres collectively. A similar permit requirement exists for small construction activity, regulated under 40 CFR 122.26(b)(15)(i), that disturbs less than one acre but is part of a larger common plan of development or sale having the potential to disturb at lease one, but less than five acres collectively. Examples of these would be lots in a subdivision or industrial park. Construction projects that disturb less than one acre not meeting these requirements may still be designated to be covered under this permit based on the potential for contribution to a violation of a water quality standard or for significant contribution of pollutants to waters of the U.S. (40 CFR 122.26(b)(15)(ii)).

The mitigation measures/environmental commitments are summarized in the following paragraphs.

Mitigation Measure WQ-1: Implement Erosion Control Best Management Practices (BMPs)

The Corps and its contractors shall implement erosion control measures throughout the construction period and during implementation of OMRR&R activities to minimize erosion and sediment input into the river. The Corps would oversee implementation of erosion control measures during construction. The contractor selected for the project shall:

• Conduct construction and OMRR&R activities during the dry season; • Conduct all construction work in accordance with site-specific construction plans that minimize the potential for increased sediment inputs to the river; • Divert concentrated runoff away from channel banks; • Minimize vegetation removal; • Identify with construction fencing all areas that required clearing, grading, revegetation, or reshaping in a way that minimizes areas to be cleared, graded, reshaped or otherwise disturbed; • Grade and stabilize spoils and stockpile sites to minimize erosion and sediment input to the river; • Implement erosion control measures as appropriate to prevent sediment from entering the river channel or other watercourses to the extent feasible, including the use of silt fencing or fiber rolls to trap sediments and erosion control blankets to protect channel banks; • Apply water to unpaved haul roads at a frequency adequate to maintain visible surface moisture; • Mulch disturbed areas as appropriate and plant with appropriate species as soon as practicable after disturbance; Rio Salado Oeste 8-2 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement

• Avoid operating equipment in flowing water by using temporary cofferdams or other suitable structures to diver flow around the channel and bank construction areas, and; • If hay bales are used for erosion control during construction they must be sterile and weed-free.

Mitigation Measure WQ-2: Implement Spill Prevention BMPs

The Corps and its contractors would prepare a spill prevention and response plan that regulates the use of hazardous and toxic materials, such as petroleum-based fuels and lubricants for construction equipment. The Corps would oversee development and implementation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan. Elements of that plan would ensure that:

• Workers are trained to avoid and manage spills; • Construction and maintenance materials are prevented from entering the river channel; • All spills are cleaned up immediately and appropriate agencies are notified of any spills and of the clean-up procedures employed; • Staging and storage areas for equipment, materials, fuels, lubricants, solvents, and other possible contaminants are located at least 100-feet a way from the river’s normal high- water area; • Vehicles are immediately removed from the work area if they are leaking, and; • Equipment is not operated in flowing water (if necessary, suitable temporary structures can be installed to divert water around in-channel work areas).

8.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Mitigation Measure BR-1: Re-vegetation Construction Management Practices

The Corps would remove salt cedar (Tamarix spp.) and giant reed (Arundo donax) from the restoration areas as part of the restoration process (Alternatives 4, 5, 5A, and 5B). The City of Phoenix, the non-federal sponsor, would be responsible for maintaining the restored habitat areas free of invasive plants, especially salt cedar and giant reed, throughout the life of the project (Alternatives 4, 5, 5A, and 5B).

The cleared areas would be re-vegetated with habitat of higher quality and permanence than the habitat removed. Implementation of good construction management practices, especially dust suppression with water and/or non-toxic dust-suppressing chemicals or soil binders, would minimize potential impacts from fugitive dust. Also, decreases in the vegetation population can be minimized through careful phasing of the project construction. Areas of desirable vegetation can be delineated on construction plans as areas that are not to be disturbed. Additionally, vegetation removal would occur outside of the spring breeding season to ensure adequate time for a majority of the avian offspring to disperse prior to construction activities.

Rio Salado Oeste 8-3 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Mitigation Measure BR-2: Use Clean and Certified Foreign Soils

If any imported topsoil is used in the restoration project, it shall be clean and certified free of weeds, including seeds (Alternatives 2, 4, 5, 5A, and 5B). Feral or free-ranging cats and dogs shall be reported to the local of Animal Control office, and signs shall be posted prohibiting the release of pets of any kind and the use of the restoration area by unrestrained pets (Alternatives 2, 4, 5, 5A, and 5B).

Mitigation Measure BR-3: Safe Harbor Agreements, Candidate Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plans

The Corps will encourage the non-Federal sponsor to enter into a Safe Harbor Agreement, Candidate Conservation Plan, or Habitat Conservation Plan as necessary for the continued O&M of the Rio Salado Oeste project. It is expected that with the development of agreements for the Rio Salado and Tres Rios restoration projects an additional agreement for the Rio Salado Oeste project will be developed.

Mitigation Measure BR-4: Consult with USFWS and AGFD prior to Ground- Disturbing Activities

Prior to ground-disturbing activities in existing riparian or wetland areas, the Corps would consult with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Arizona Game and Fish Department to determine the potential for the occurrence of any sensitive wildlife species. If sensitive species are determined to be present or to have potential to occur, the schedule for invasive removal shall be revised to avoid breeding seasons of any sensitive species on site (Alternatives 4, 5, 5A, and 5B).

Mitigation Measure BR-5: Conduct Operation & Maintenance Activities on a Rotating Basis and Only During Non-Nesting Periods

Sediment removal and other activities would only be conducted during non-nesting periods of the above listed Threatened and Endangered species, and Wildlife of Special Concern. Sediment removal would be conducted on a rotating basis so that no more than 25 percent of the marsh area would be affected in any one year.

Mitigation Measure BR-6: Reinitiation of Section 7 Consultation

The estimated construction date for this project to commence is 2010, pending Congressional Authorization and subsequent funding for design and construction. Project area conditions may change by that time. Should new information become available or suitable habitat for southwester willow flycatcher or Yuma clapper rail become established prior to construction commencing, protocol surveys will be conducted and section 7 consultation reinitiated as necessary.

Rio Salado Oeste 8-4 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Mitigation Measure BR-7: Trap and Relocate Native Fish

It would be necessary to drain the lakes in the project implementation area during construction, and impacts to fish could be significant. To mitigate this impact, it is recommended that native fish be trapped and relocated prior to any major water draw-down.

8.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES

Mitigation Measures CR-1: Conclude MOA to Complete Field Surveys and Conduct Testing and Data Recovery Activities as Appropriate

Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, 36 CFR 800.13(2), any discoveries of either human remains or archeological deposits shall result in the following process:

• Contractor shall stop work; • Corps of Engineers Archeology Staff shall be notified of discovery; • Corps Archeology Staff shall determine if discovered cultural mater is an isolated find, or consists of a deposit of some extent. If needed, hand excavations shall be conducted to determine if the deposit is of sufficient content and integrity to be eligibly for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, and; • The Corps shall determine eligibility, and effect in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer pursuant to 36 CFR 800.

8.6 AESTHETICS

No mitigation required.

8.7 AIR QUALITY

Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Implement PM-10 - Reducing Measures during Channel Excavation and Bank Stabilization

All construction, restoration and routine maintenance activities would be required to include fugitive dust control measures in accordance with Maricopa County Air Quality Rule 310. The Corps would implement an appropriate combination of the following PM-10 - reducing construction practices in compliance with Maricopa County Rule 310 throughout the construction period:

• Apply water to unpaved haul roads at a frequency adequate to maintain visible surface moisture. Alternatively, apply nontoxic binders (e.g., latex acrylic copolymer) to supplement road watering in accordance with Maricopa County Rule 310;

Rio Salado Oeste 8-5 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement

• Minimize vehicle speed on unpaved roads; • Water active storage piles at least with a frequency consistent with Maricopa County Rule 310; • Cover or otherwise stabilize inactive storage piles where feasible; • Cover haul trucks securely when transporting materials; • Water all active construction areas with a frequency consistent with Maricopa County Rule 310. Frequency should be increased if wind speeds exceed 15 mph, and; • Prohibit all grading activities during periods of high wind (i.e., winds greater than 30 mph). Compliance with Maricopa County rules would be made a condition of the construction contract and would be enforced through weekly inspection by the Corps.

Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Promotion of Alternative Transportation and Energy Efficiency

In order to mitigate potential environmental impacts from increased traffic, recreational facilities (e.g., multipurpose trails, walk-in access points, access control, continuity with other projects) would be developed that promote alternative transportation and energy efficiency. Initial capacity of the parking facilities would be designed for not more than 500 vehicles in order to limit the potential impact of human activities upon the restoration project.

8.8 NOISE

Mitigation Measure N-1: Employ Noise-Reducing Construction Measures

Construction within 1,000-feet of residences or other noise-sensitive uses shall be restricted to daytime hours. No construction shall be performed within 1,000 feet of an occupied dwelling on Sundays, on legal holidays, or between the hours of 7pm and 7am on other days.

All construction equipment shall have sound-control devices that are at least as effective as those devices provided on the original equipment. No equipment shall have a muffled exhaust.

As directed by the Corps, the contractor shall implement appropriate additional noise mitigation, including, but not limited to, changing the location of stationary construction equipment, shutting off idling equipment, notifying adjacent residents in advance of construction work, and installing acoustic barriers around stationary construction noise sources.

Rio Salado Oeste 8-6 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement

8.9 SOCIAL AND ECONOMOIC RESOURCES

No mitigation required.

8.10 TRANSPORTATION

Mitigation Measure T-1: Implement Traffic Control Plan

This work shall consist of traffic control, and use of devices and flagmen or pilot cars in accordance with Section 401 of the COP Supplements and the City of Phoenix Traffic Barricade Manual, dated 1998.

All traffic and/or traffic control devices on this project shall be provided, maintained and/or controlled as specified in the City of Phoenix Traffic Barricade Manual, dated 1998.

Permission to restrict city streets, sidewalks and alleys (street closure permits) shall be requested as specified in Section III of the City of Phoenix Traffic Barricade Manual.

Unless otherwise provided for in the following General Traffic Regulations, all traffic on this project shall be regulated as specified in Section IV of the City of Phoenix Traffic Barricade Manual.

Mitigation Measure T-2: Repair Damaged Roadways

The Corps or its contractors shall repair any damage to existing roadways caused as a result of construction activities for this project. Repair work shall be coordinated with the agencies having jurisdiction over each roadway and with the intent to return the roadways to the conditions existing immediately prior to the commencement of the project.

8.11 LAND USE

No mitigation required.

8.12 RECREATION

No mitigation required.

8.13 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mitigation Measure PHS-1: Implement HTRW Management Measures

Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be implemented during construction. Some examples of these BMPs follow. Construction activities should be conducted in the dry weather Rio Salado Oeste 8-7 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement

season to the extent possible to minimize exposure of disturbed construction sites to rainfall and stormwater runoff. The general contractor for the project would prepare and implement standard grading and erosion control measures (e.g., management, structural, and vegetative controls) to minimize exposure of soil that may contribute to contaminated runoff. BMPs must be implemented before predicted rain events. In addition, the construction contractor would implement standard hazardous materials management practices to reduce the possibility of chemical spills or releases of contaminants in runoff.

Mitigation Measure PHS-2: Implement Construction and OMRR&R Management Measures

The Contractor shall provide temporary fencing, barricades, and/or guards, as required, to provide protection in the interest of public safety. Whenever the Contractor's operations create a condition hazardous to the public, he shall furnish at his own expense and without cost to the Government, such flagmen and guards as are necessary to give adequate warning to the public of any dangerous conditions to be encountered and he shall furnish, erect, or maintain such fences, barricades, lights, signs and other devices as are necessary to prevent accidents and avoid damage or injury to the public. Flagmen and guards, while on duty and assigned to give warning and safety devices shall conform to applicable city, county, and state requirements.

Should the Contractor appear to be neglectful or negligent in furnishing adequate warning and protection measures, the Contracting Officer may direct attention to the existence of a hazard and the necessary warning and protective measures shall be furnished and installed by the Contractor without additional cost to the Government. Should the Contracting Officer point out the inadequacy of warning and protective measures, such action of the Contracting Officer shall not relieve the Contractor from any responsibility for public safety or abrogate his obligation to furnish and pay for those devices. The installation of any general illumination shall not relieve the Contractor of his responsibility for furnishing and maintaining any protective facility.

Mitigation Measure PHS-3: Monitoring Plan, Natural Controls and Chemical Pesticides

Chemical pesticides would be avoided in favor of natural controls because chemical pesticides often adversely affect desirable fish and wildlife species, as well as humans. Restored habitat would attract some natural predators of mosquitoes, including insects such as water striders, giant water bugs, common backswimmers, dragonflies, and water boatman. Vertebrate predators, including barn swallows, black phoebes, song sparrows, and several species of bats would also potentially populate the habitat following restoration. Native insect and vertebrate predators of mosquitoes could be introduced to the habitat, but unless conditions are optimum, populations may not remain adequate for long-term mosquito control.

Large populations of mosquitoes often occur even in relatively undisturbed habitats where water is present. The Gila topminnow (Poeciliopsis occidentalis occidentalis), a small native fish that is federally listed as Endangered, may effectively control mosquitoes. Special protocols would be required to introduce this species to the project area due to its endangered status, but Gila topminnow may be a good option in areas where non-native predators (including mosquito fish) Rio Salado Oeste 8-8 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement

are not present. Western mosquito fish (Gambusia affinis), a species of small fish native to the United States from eastern Mississippi to eastern Texas that feeds on mosquito larvae, are commonly stocked in ponds as an efficient and economical biological method of mosquito abatement. Mosquito fish also consume eggs and fry of native fish, as well as desirable insect species, which would be detrimental to native fish populations. In the borrow pit lakes, where fish populations consist primarily of introduced game species, mosquito fish may be an acceptable biological control, provided that they are confined to the lakes. A bacterium, Bacillus thuringensis var israeliensis, which is specific to mosquito larvae but harmless to most other organisms, is another effective biological control that may be compatible with ecological restoration.

In addition to the above possible measures, Maricopa County has a routine monitoring program county wide and a vector control program to help reduce the risk of mosquito-borne disease. Maricopa County Vector Control monitors mosquitoes along the Salt River primarily during the summer months. Maricopa County Department of Environmental Services, Vector Control Division and the Arizona State Department of Health Services, Office of Infectious Disease Services, Vector-Borne and Zoonotic Disease Section are the agencies primarily responsible for control of mosquitoes and other animal vectors in the project area.

Rio Salado Oeste 8-9 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement

CHAPTER 9 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

9.1 SCOPING

The City of Phoenix formally requested assistance from the Corps to explore possible remedies for several problems recognized along the Salt River. Many of these problems have long- standing and regionally widespread roots, but are evident in the immediate region of the study area. In brief, they can be attributed to land use changes in the past 150 years. The Salt River no longer runs as a perennial stream and the average depth to groundwater is far greater than was true in the past. Without previously available water sources and modifications that have been made to the floodplain, most of the native vegetation and wildlife cannot survive, and the Salt River is biologically quite impoverished. The objectives of the study are as follow:

• Restore native riparian, wetland and floodplain habitat and manage undesirable plan, fish and wildlife species.

• Reduce flood damages to infrastructure and structures.

• Improve passive recreation and environmental-education opportunities.

The publication of the Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS in the Federal Register on August 28, 2001 initiated the Rio Salado Oeste NEPA process, which emphasizes public involvement. The non-federal views and preferences regarding ecosystem restoration, with some recreation, were generally obtained through coordination with the non-federal sponsor and with various local and regional agencies and organizations, neighborhood associations, and the general public. Since September 2001, city staff held nearly 200 public presentations, reaching over 7,000 individuals, about Phoenix Rio Salado. The initial public meeting for Rio Salado Oeste was September 13, 2001. The final public meeting/hearing was May 18, 2006. During this timeframe, a diverse 25-member advisory committee met 27 times. The target audiences for Rio Salado Oeste included the city's Laveen Village Planning Committee, Estrella Village Planning Committee, South Mountain Village Planning Committee and the 142 city council District 7 neighborhoods. District 7 includes most of south and west Phoenix, with approximately 215,000 residents. The public meetings were advertised in The Arizona Republic, La Prenza, La Voz, Asian Sun News, Asian American Times and Arizona Informant. Announcements for public meetings, including the date, time, location, and subject matter, were made in local newspapers. A formal public scoping meeting was held with the sponsor on September 13, 2001. The purpose of the meeting was to introduce the project to the public, give individuals and agencies an opportunity to identify issues for consideration in this DEIS, and to solicit input on the project. The Corps received no written public comments during the scoping period. Comments received during the DEIS public meeting and responses can be found in Appendix E. The Corps, in conjunction with the local sponsors, held or made presentations at the following locations:

Rio Salado Oeste 9-1 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement

• Tres Rios Project Stakeholder Meeting at Flood Control District of Maricopa County- November 14, 2001, and;

• Rio Salado Advisory Committee Meetings - January 2004, May 2005;

Concerns expressed at the public meetings included the following:

• Vector control is an important component;

• Flood conveyance needs to be maintained;

• Utilize existing open water bodies (public fishing), and;

• Natural water course should be maintained.

9.2 HGM MODEL PREPARATION

The hydrogeomorphic modeling (HGM) approach to assessing wetland functions has been developed by scientists and the Engineering Research and Development Center (ERDC) Environmental Laboratory (EL) under its wetlands research program. Under this assessment procedure, the focus is narrowed to 1) the functions a particular type of wetland will perform and 2) the characteristics of the ecosystem and landscape controls of those functions. Wetlands are classified by their geomorphic setting, water source, and hydrodynamics.

From March 26–28, 2002, the Corps sponsored a workshop in Tucson, Arizona, to modify the HGM models that would be used for this project. In addition to the Corps and its consultants, participants included: representatives of federal, state and local agencies; technical experts in hydrology, soils, wildlife, and riparian vegetation, and; representatives from the non-federal cost- sharing sponsors. A subset of workshop participants gathered the base field data for the HGM model during the week of April 22, 2002. In June, 2002, representatives of federal, state, and local agencies with an interest in the Rio Salado Oeste project met to discuss baseline project area conditions and without-project results. In April, 2004, a similar group met to project future without-project conditions for the HGM models.

9.3 AGENCY COORDINATION

This FEIS has been prepared in compliance with NEPA to meet the needs of federal, state, and local permitting agencies in considering the proposed restoration of this reach of the Salt River. The lead agency responsible for preparing this FEIS for the proposed action is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District. The City of Phoenix is the non-federal sponsor for the project. The Corps is responsible for ensuring that this EIS has been prepared in compliance with the provisions of NEPA. The Corps will determine the adequacy and completeness of the final EIS (FEIS) prior to rendering any decisions on the proposed action. A decision for the proposed action will be issued by the Corps in the form of a Record of Decision (ROD). The Rio Salado Oeste 9-2 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Corps will rely upon this EIS when considering whether to move forward with any of the restoration projects described in the proposed action. This EIS will also be utilized by other federal and state agencies to evaluate the project for permitting decisions. Thus far, the Corps has coordinated with the following agencies during the completion of this EIS: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Flood Control District of Maricopa County, Arizona Game and Fish Department, and the City of Phoenix.

9.4 PUBLIC HEARING

A 45-day comment period on the Rio Salado Oeste, Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) began with the publication of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Notice of Availability in the Federal Register on May 12, 2006. A public hearing to discuss and receive comments on the Draft EIS was held at the Travis L Williams Family Services Community Center in Phoenix, Arizona on the evening of May 18, 2006. Notices were sent to local communities and a public notice in the Arizona Republic announced the public meeting.

Karen Williams of the City of Phoenix gave an introduction to Rio Salado. Colonel Dornstauder of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers gave a briefing on the project. This presentation can be found in Appendix E of this statement. Afterward, the public was given three minutes to provide an oral comment. Eight members of the public spoke, all in favor of the project. The public hearing minutes can be found in Appendix E.

In addition, comment cards were available. We had one comment that mentioned a loss of focus on the environmental education this project would provide. That comment and response can be found in Appendix E.

Additionally, we received eleven letters of support for the project from: Sam Campana, Vice President and Executive Director of the Audubon Society of Arizona; Karen William of the City of Phoenix; Domenick Commisso, former member of the Rio Salado Advisory Committee; Congressman Ed Pastor; Donald P. Kuth, President of the Phoenix Community Alliance; Claude Mattox, Phoenix Councilman from District 5; Diana Brooks, Chairperson of the Phoenix Parks and Recreation Board; Joan Kelchner, Chairperson of the Phoenix Planning Commission; Doug Lingner, Vice Mayor of the City of Phoenix; George Young, Chairman of the South Mountain Village Planning Committee and former Chariman of the Rio Salado Advisory Committee; and, Diane Brossart, President of Valley Forward. The letters can be found in Appendix E.

We also received letters from seven different tribes, agencies and organizations: the Arizona Riparian Council, the Arizona Department of Game & Fish, the City of Phoenix, the Department of Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Salt River Project and the Yavapai Tribe. These letters recommended changes or had editorial remarks as well as an offer of support for the project. The letters and our responses can be found in Appendix E.

All comments received during the comment period were considered in the preparation of the Final EIS. Comments received during the public hearing or in writing, along with responses, may be found in Appendix E of the Final EIS.

Rio Salado Oeste 9-3 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement

CHAPTER 10 LIST OF PREPARERS AND REVIEWERS This EIS for the Rio Salado Oeste project was written by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District Office (California).

Team Member Title/Area of Responsibility

Scott Estergard, Study Manager, Qualifications – BS. Biology. 14 years experience Feasibility Report Coordinator

Timothy Kennedy, Environmental Coordinator, Qualifications - BA. Geology 12 years experience EIS Coordinator

Richard Legere, Biologist, Qualifications – BA. Biology 13 years experience Writer/Editor

Jeanine Divis, Biological Science Study Manager – B.S. Environmental Resources (Ecology Emphasis) 4 years experience Writer/Editor

Pam Maxwell, Archeologist, Qualifications – BA. Anthropology; MA Anthropology (Archeology Emphasis); 16 years experience Cultural Resources

Patricia A. Krueger, Biologist, Qualifications – MS. Biological Sciences 15 years experience Biological Resources

Roland Tabije, Air Quality Specialist, Qualifications – BA. Environmental Analysis & Design 3 years experience Air Quality

Priscilla E. Perry, Chief, Regional Planning Section, Qualification - BS. Civil/Environmental Engineering 25 years experience Reviewer/Editor

Alex Watt, Chief, Environmental Resources Branch, Qualification - BS. Physical Geography 25 years experience Reviewer Rio Salado Oeste 10-1 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Lydia Lopez-Cruz, Archaeologist, Qualifications – BA. Anthropology 5 years experience Writer/Editor

Michael J. Fink, Landscape Ecologist - Environmental Manager, Qualifications – BA. Environmental Manager, Regional Planning Section, 25 years experience Reviewer

Rio Salado Oeste 10-2 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement

CHAPTER 11 REFERENCES

PRINTED REFERENCES

Antieau, J. M., and P. Stein. 1981. Regional environmental background: topography, geology, and soils. In The Palo Verde Archaeological Investigations, edited by J. M. Antieau, pp. 5-7. Museum of Northern Arizona Research Paper 20. Flagstaff: Museum of Northern Arizona.

Antieau, J. M. 1978. Letter to Marjorie Wilson. 1981. The Palo Verde Archaeological Investigations. Museum of Northern Arizona Research Paper 20. Flagstaff: Museum of Northern Arizona.

Arizona Administrative Code, Title 18, Chapter 11, § 109 A Appendix A, Numeric Water Quality Criteria, September 30, 1996 (A.A.C. R18-11-109.A Appendix A).

Arizona Department of Economic Security. Economic, population, and demographic statistics, 1997 and 2002. Available: . Accessed March 3, 2002.

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. 1998. Arizona’s 1998 Water Quality Limited Waters List Prepared in Fulfillment of Section 303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Act. Phoenix

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), 2001. FY 2001 Waste Programs Reports: Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund Report, A.R.S. §49-282.G.

ADEQ. 2004 Air Quality Data for Arizona.

-Phoenix, AZ. 2000. Air quality planning standards. July 3, 2000. Available: . Accessed March 7, 2002.

-ADEQ Home Page: Aquifer Protection Program. 2006. Available: http://www.azdeq.gov/ environ/water/permits/app.html. Accessed March 13, 2006.

Arizona Department of Water Resources. 1992. Maps showing groundwater conditions in the Phoenix Active Management Area. DWR Hydrologic Map No. 27: Depth to water and altitude of the water level (Sheet 1 of 3). Prepared by B.A. Hammett and R.L. Herther.

Arizona Game and Fish Department. 1988. Threatened native wildlife in Arizona. Phoenix, AZ.

-1996 (in preparation). Wildlife of special concern in Arizona. Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program. Phoenix, AZ.

Rio Salado Oeste 11-1 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement

-1998a. Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuenae. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ.

-1998b. Falco peregrinus anatum. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ.

-2001a. Coccyzus americanus. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ.

-2001b. Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum. Unpublished abstract compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ.

Arizona Meteorological Network. 2002. Monthly summary monitoring data for Phoenix Encanto. January 2001–February 2002. Available: . Accessed March 7, 2002.

Arizona State University, Partnership for Research in Spatial Modeling (PRISM) Website, Santa Catalina Mountain Cloud Project. Available: < http://prism.asu.edu/clouds/monsoon.asp>. Accessed February 22, 2006.

Bass, R.E., Albert, I.H. and Bogden, K. M. 2001. The NEPA Book, 2nd edition., p. 102., Solano Press Books, Point Arena, CA.

Beard, B. 1998. Gila River Indian Community tracing past to determine future. The ArizonaRepublic. April 18.

Benham-Blair Associates, Inc. 1980. Clearing of phreatophytic vegetation from the Salt and Gila Rivers, Ninety-first Avenue to Gillespie Dam, Maricopa County, Arizona: draft environmental assessment. Prepared for Maricopa County Flood Control District, Phoenix, AZ.

Bohrer, V. L. 1970. Ethnobotanical aspects of Snaketown, a Hohokam village in southern Arizona. American Antiquity 35 (4): 413-30.

Bowers, J. E. 1993. Shrubs and trees of the southwest deserts. Tucson, AZ: Southwest Parks and Monuments Association.

Brown, D. E. 1982. Desert plants: biotic communities of the American Southwest – UnitedStates and Mexico. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press. Prepared for the

Boyce Thompson Southwestern Arboretum.

Cable, J. S., and D. E. Doyel. 1987. Pioneer period village structure and settlement pattern in the Phoenix basin. In The Hohokam Village: Site Structure and Organization. Edited by D. E. Doyel, pp. 21-71. American Association of the Advancement of Science, Glenwood Springs.

Rio Salado Oeste 11-2 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Carlin, G. 1981. Life on the St. Johns Ditch. Journal of Arizona History. Summer: 159-176.

Cerveny, R. 1995. The climate of Phoenix: Part 1. Available: .

CH2M HILL in association with Logan, Simpson & Dye, and EcoPlan Associates. 1997. Salt- Gila River baseline ecological characterization. Prepared for City of Phoenix, AZ.

Crown, P. L. 1991a. The role of exchange and interaction in Salt-Gila Basin Hohokam prehistory. In Exploring the Hohokam: Prehistoric Desert Peoples of the American Southwest, edited by G. J. Gumerman, pp. 231-278. Amerind Foundation New World Studies Series, No. 1. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

-1991b. Hohokam Prehistory and Regional System. In Chaco and Hohokam, edited by Patricia Crown and W, James Judge, pp. 135-158. School of American Research Advanced Seminar Series. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

Crown, P. L., and E. W. Sires, Jr. 1984. The Hohokam Chronology and Salt-Gila Aqueduct Research. In Hohokam Archaeology Along the Salt-Gila Aqueduct, : Synthesis and Conclusions, edited by L. S. Teague and P. L. Crown, pp. 73-86. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series, no. 150, Vol 9. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Davis, A. P. 1902. Water storage on Salt River, Arizona. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply. Paper 73. Washington: Government Printing Office.

Dean, J. S. 1991. Thoughts on Hohokam chronology. In Exploring the Hohokam: Prehistoric Desert Peoples of the American Southwest, edited by G. J. Gumerman, pp. 231-278. Amerind Foundation New World Studies Series, No. 1. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Deaver, W. L. 1997. Chronological Issues of the LVAP. In The lower Verde archaeological project: Overview, synthesis, and conclusions, edited by S. M. Whittlesey, R. Ciolek-Torrello, and J. H. Altschul, pp. 547-490. Tucson: SRI Press.

Dobyns, H. 1974. The Kohatk: Oasis and Ak-chin horticulturists. Ethnohistory 21(4):317-327.

Downum, C. E., and T. Bostwick (eds.) 1993. Archaeology of the Pueblo Grande platform mound and surrounding features. Volume 1. Introduction to the Archival Project andHistory of Archaeological Research. Pueblo Grande Museum Anthropological Papers No.1.

City of Phoenix, Parks, Recreation and Library Department, Pueblo Grande Museum. Doyel, D. E. 1986. A short history of Hohokam research. In Emil Haury’s Prehistory of the Southwest, edited by J. J. Reid and D. E. Doyel, pp. 194-210. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Rio Salado Oeste 11-3 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement

-1988. Interpreting prehistoric diversity in southern Arizona. Paper presented at the Charles C. DiPeso Retrospective, The Amerind Foundation, Dragoon, AZ.

-1991. Hohokam cultural evolution in the Phoenix basin. In Exploring the Hohokam: Prehistoric Desert Peoples of the American Southwest, edited by G. J. Gumerman, pp. 231-278. Amerind Foundation New World Studies Series, No. 1. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Drucker, P. 1941. Culture element distributions, XVII: Yuma-Pima. University of California Anthropological Records 6(3), Berkeley, CA.

Duncan, K. W., S. D. Schemnitz, M. Suzuki, Z. Homesley, and M. Cardenas. 1993. Evaluation of salt cedar control—Pecos River, New Mexico. Pages 207-209 in B. Tellman, H. J. Cortner, M. G. Wallace, L. F. DeBano, R. H. Hamre (tech. coord.), Riparian Management: Common Threads and Shared Interests—a Western Regional Conference on River Management Strategies. February 4-6, 1993. Albuquerque, NM. (U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report RM-226.) U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Fort Collins, CO.

Eddelman, W. R., and C. J. Conway. 1998. Clapper rail (Rallus longirostris). In: A. Poole and F. Gill (eds.) The birds of North America. Publication No. 340. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and the American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.

Environmental First Search. 2002. Regulatory database search for project study area. Prepared for United Civil Group Corporation.

Environmental Protection Agency. AP-42, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors.

Epple, A. O. 1995. A field guide to the plants of Arizona. Mesa, AZ: LewAnn Publishing Company.

Ezell, P. H. 1983. History of the Pima. In Southwest, edited by A. Ortiz, pp. 149-160. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 10, W. C. Sturtevant, general editor. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Fish, P. R. 1989. The Hohokam. In Dynamics of Southwestern Prehistory, edited by Linda Cordell and George J. Gumerman, pp. 19-64. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Fish, P. R., S. K. Fish, J. Madsen, C. Mikisicek, S. Szutzer, and J. Field. 1986. A long-term pioneer adaptation in the Tucson basin. Paper Presented at the 1987 Hohokam Conference, Tempe, AZ.

Fish, S. K., and P. R. Fish. 1994. Multisite communities as measures of Hohokam aggregation. In The Ancient Southwestern Community: Models and Methods for the Study of Prehistoric Social Organization, edited by W. H. Wills, and Robert D. Leonard, pp. 119-130. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Rio Salado Oeste 11-4 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Fish, S. K., and G. P. Nabhan. 1991. Desert as context: The Hohokam environment. In Exploring the Hohokam: Prehistoric Desert Peoples of the American Southwest, edited by G. J. Gumerman, pp. 231-278. Amerind Foundation New World Studies Series, No. 1. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Fontana, B. L. 1983. Pima and Papago. In Southwest, edited by A. Ortiz, pp. 125-136. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol 10, W. C. Sturtevant, general editor. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Gila River Indian Community (GRIC). 1998. Irrigation on the Gila River. Gila River Indian Community website. Available: .

Gladwin, H. S. 1942. Excavations at Snaketown III: Revisions. Medallion Papers 30, Gila Pueblo, Globe.

Gladwin, H. S., E. W. Haury, E. B. Sayles, and N. Gladwin. 1937. Excavations at Snaketown, material culture. Medallion Papers 25, Gila Pueblo, Globe.

Gladwin, W., and H. Gladwin. 1933. Some Southwestern pottery types. Series III. Medallion Papers 13, Gila Pueblo, Globe.

-The eastern range of the Red-on-buff culture. 1934. Medallion Papers 16. Gila Pueblo, Globe.

Graf, W. L., P. J. Beyer, and T. Wasklewicz. 1994. Geomorphic assessment of the lower Salt River, Central Arizona. Arizona State University. Tempe, AZ. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, Arizona Area Office, Phoenix, AZ.

Granger, B. H. (Reviser). 1960. Will C. Barnes’ Arizona Place Names. Facsimile Edition. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Gregory, D. A. 1991. Form and variation in Hohokam settlement patterns. In Chaco & Hohokam: Regional Systems in the American Southwest, edited by P. L. Crown and W. J. Judge, pp. 159-194. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press.

Gumerman, G. J. 1991. Understanding the Hohokam. In Exploring the Hohokam: Prehistoric Desert Peoples of the American Southwest, edited by G. J. Gumerman, pp. 1-28. Amerind Foundation New World Studies Series, No. 1. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Gumerman, G. J., and E. W. Haury. 1979. Prehistory: Hohokam. In Southwest, edited by A. Ortiz, pp. 75-90. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 9, W.C. Sturtevant, general editor. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Hackenburg, R. A. 1982. Pima and Papago ecological adaptations. In Southwest, edited by A. Ortiz, pp. 161-177. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 10, W. C. Sturtevant, general editor. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Rio Salado Oeste 11-5 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Harvey, M. J., J. S. Altenbach, and T. L. Best. 1999. Bats of the United States. Little Rock, AK: Arkansas Game and Fish Commission.

Haury, E. W. 1976. The Hohokam: Desert farmers and craftsman. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Hodge, F. W. 1893. Prehistoric irrigation in Arizona. American Anthropologist 6(July): 323- 330.

Horton, A. G. 1941. An economic, political, and social survey of Phoenix and the Valley of theSun. Tempe, AZ: Southside Progress. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District References

Hurlbut, S. 1995. Archaeological Excavation of Isolated Human Remains at the Tres Rios Wetlands Demonstration Site in Southwest Phoenix, Maricopa County. Archaeological Consulting Services, Ltd. Under contract with the Bureau of Reclamation, Contract No. 1425-2- CS-32-01820.

Jones & Stokes Associates. 2000. Tres Rios feasibility study environmental impact statement. Final. March. (JSA 97-295.) Phoenix, AZ. Prepared under contract with TetraTech (formerly Simons, Li & Associates), Costa Mesa, CA. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, Los Angeles, CA.

Kearney, T. H., and R. H. Peebles. 1951. Arizona flora. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Kelly, J. C. 1966. Mesoamerica and the southwestern United States. In Handbook of MiddleAmerican Indians, vol. 4, Archaeological Frontiers and External Connections, edited by G. F. Ekholm and G. R. Willey, pp. 95-110. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Lewenstein, S., and D. Avann. 1999. Archaeological monitoring of geotechnical drilling for access improvements at the Tres Rios Wetlands demonstration project (Revised). Prepared for the City of Phoenix. Dames & Moore, Phoenix, AZ.

Lowendorf, C. n.d. Overview of Old St. Johns Canal. Manuscript on file at the Office of Cultural Resource Management. Arizona State University, Tempe.

Maricopa Association of Governments. 1997. Projections by municipal planning area 1995– 2020. June 25. Obtained via facsimile from Harry Wolfe on March 6, 2002.

- Maricopa Association of Governments Home Page. Available: . Accessed on February 17, 2006.

Maricopa County Environmental Services Department, Air Quality Division. - 2002. Air Monitoring Network Review. January 2000–December 2001. Available: . Accessed March 7, 2002. Rio Salado Oeste 11-6 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement

- 2004a. Maricopa County Environmental Services Department, 2002 Periodic Emissions Inventory for Ozone Precursors for the Maricopa County, Arizona, Nonattainment Area, June 2004.

- 2004b. Maricopa County Environmental Services Department, 2002 Periodic Emissions Inventory for PM-10 for the Maricopa County, Arizona, Nonattainment Area, June 2004 (revised March 2006).

2006. Maricopa County Air Quality Department Air Quality Status Website. Available: . Accessed: September 15, 2006.

Maricopa County Planning and Development Department. -1992a. Maricopa land use plan, Estrella Planning Area. January 21, 1992. Phoenix, AZ. -1992b. Maricopa land use plan, Laveen Planning Area. February 18, 1992. Phoenix, AZ.1997.

Maricopa County comprehensive plan. Available: . Accessed: March 12, 2002.

Marsh, P. C., and W. L. Minckly. 1982. Fishes of the Phoenix metropolitan area in central Arizona. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 4:395–402.

McGuire, R. H., and M. B. Schiffer. 1982. Hohokam and Patayan. New York: Academic Press.

McLean, R. and R. Perry. 2002. The Tres Rios Survey: An archeological survey of 700 acres for the proposed Tres Rios, Arizona Feasibility Study, Maricopa County. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District.

Midvale, F. 1968. Prehistoric irrigation in the Salt River Valley. The Kiva 34(1): 28-34.

Monson, G., and A. R. Phillips. 1981. Annotated checklist of the birds of Arizona. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.

Myers, J. 1961. I, Jack Swilling: Founder of Phoenix, Arizona. New York: Hastings House.

Nabhan, G. P. 1989. Enduring Seeds. New York: North Point Press.

Nials, F. L., and D. A. Gregory. 1989. Irrigation systems in the lower Salt River Valley. In The 1982-1984 Excavations at Las Colinas: Environment and Subsistence, by D. A. Graybill, D. A. Gregory, E L. Nials, S. K. Fish, R. E. Gasser, C. H. Miksicek, and C. R. Szuter, pp. 39-58. Archaeological Series No. 162, Vol. 5. Tucson: University of Arizona, Arizona State Museum.

Nials, F. L., D. A. Gregory, and D. A. Graybill. 1989. Salt River streamflow and Hohokam irrigation systems. In The 1982-1 984 Excavations at Las Colinas: Environment and Subsistence, by D. A. Graybill, D. A. Gregory, E L. Nials, S. K. Fish, R. E. Gasser, C. H.

Rio Salado Oeste 11-7 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Miksicek, and C. R. Szuter, pp. 39-58. Archaeological Series No. 162, Vol. 5. Tucson: University of Arizona, Arizona State Museum.

Neitzel, J. 1991. Hohokam material culture and behavior. In Exploring the Hohokam: Desert Peoples of the American Southwest, edited by G. J. Gumerman, pp. 177-230. Amerind Foundation New World Studies Series, No. 1. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Ohio EPA Fact sheets and Publications, Wetlands and Water Quality. Available: <(http://www.epa.state.oh.us/pic/facts/wetqual.html>. Accessed February 13, 2006.

Omart, R. D., B. W. Anderson, and W. C. Hunter. 1988. The ecology of the lower Colorado River from Davis Dam to the Mexico-United States international boundary: a community profile. Biological Report 85 (7.19).

Onken, Jill and Richard Ciolek-Torrello. 2005. Archaeological Testing at AZ T:11:94(ASM), Tres Rios Project, Maricopa County, Arizona. Statistical Research, Inc. Technical Report 04-39.

Patrick, H. R. 1903. The ancient canal builders and pueblos of the Salt River Valley. Arizona. Phoenix Free Museum, Bulletin No. 1, Phoenix.

Phillips A. R., J. T. Marshall, and G. Monson. 1964. The birds of Arizona. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.

Phoenix, City of. 1996. Tres Rios demonstration constructed wetlands operations and restoration. Presented at the Arizona Water Pollution Control Association Technical Program Presentation. Tucson, AZ.

-1998. Tres Rios demonstration constructed wetlands: fact sheet. Phoenix, AZ.

Parks, Recreation and Library Department. 2001a. Listing of City of Phoenix Parks. Available: . Accessed March 11, 2002.

Planning Department. 2001b. City of Phoenix general plan update: preserving our past, choosing our future. November 7. Available: . Accessed: February 28, 2002.

-2002. City of Phoenix website. Available: www.ci.phoenix.az.us.

-2002. Phoenix City Code. Adopted Feb. 6, 2002; effective March 8, 2002. (Supplement No. 3). Available: .

-Phoenix, City of, Official Municipal Web Site. Available: . Accessed February 17, 2006

Rio Salado Oeste 11-8 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Plog, F. T. 1980. Explaining culture change in the Hohokam Preclassic. In Current Issues in Hohokam Prehistory, edited by D. E. Doyel and F. Plog, pp. 4-22. Anthropological Research Papers 23. Arizona State University, Tempe.

Rice, G. E. 1990. A design for Salado research. Roosevelt Monograph Series No. 1. Office of Cultural Resource Management Report No. 22. Arizona State University, Tempe.

Roberts, F. H. H, Jr. 1935. A survey of southwestern Archaeology. American Anthropologist, 37(1):1-35.

Russell, F. 1908. The Pima Indians. Twenty-sixth annual report of the Bureau of American Ethnography, 1904-1905. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community Council (SRPMICC). 1989. Policy Statement. Salt-River Pima Maricopa Indian Community, Scottsdale, AZ.

Salt River Project. 1979. The taming of the Salt. Communications and Public Affairs Department, Phoenix.

Sky Harbor Coalition Website. Available: , Accessed February 18, 2006.

Stebbins, R. C. 1954. Amphibians and reptiles of western North America. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Stein, P. H. 1977. National Register of Historic Places Inventory—Nomination Form. Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff.

Swanton, J. R. 1969[1952]. The Indian Tribes of North America. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 145. Classics of American Anthropology. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Szaro, R. C. 1989. Desert plants: riparian forest and scrubland community types of Arizona and New Mexico. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press. Prepared for the Boyce Thompson Southwestern Arboretum.

Telles, C. 1994. Tres Rios Wetlands Project Cultural Resource Survey Form Report. Bureau of Reclamation.

Tempe, City of, Tempe Town Lake website. Available: <(http://www.tempe.gov/lake/ Development/Construction.htm>. Accessed February 16, 2006.

Tres Rios River Management Steering Committee—Water Quality Technical Committee. 1998.

Tres Rios river management plan—water quality summary report. Phoenix, AZ.

Rio Salado Oeste 11-9 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Turney, O. 1929. Prehistoric irrigation. Arizona Historical Review 2 (2): 11-52.

URS. 2002. Modified Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Rio Salado Oeste Project in Phoenix, Arizona for the City of Phoenix. August, 2002. URS Job No. E1-00001727.15.

URS. 2002. Draft Groundwater Quality and Hydrogeology Report, Rio Salado Oeste Project, City of Phoenix. April 1, 2002. URS Job No. E1-00001727.15

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1997. Rio Salado, Salt River, Arizona: draft feasibility report and draft environmental impact statement. Los Angeles District, Arizona Area Office. Phoenix, AZ. Prepared by Aspen Environmental Group, Agoura Hills, CA.

-1998. Rio Salado, Salt River, Arizona: feasibility report and environmental impact statement. Final. April. Los Angeles District, Arizona Area Office. Phoenix, AZ.

-2000. Tres Rios Feasibility Study. Technical Appendices A and B. April 2000. Los Angeles District, Arizona Area Office. Phoenix, AZ.

U.S. Census Bureau. 1990 and 2000. Census Lookup. American Fact Finder. Available: . Accessed March 1, 2002.

U.S. Geological Survey. 1991. Predevelopment hydrology of the Salt River Indian Reservation, East Salt River Valley, Arizona. Water Resources Investigation Report 91-4132. Tucson, AZ.

-1994. National Water-Quality Assessment Program – Central Arizona Basins. Factsheet 94- 016. Tucson, AZ.

-1995a. Statistical chemical characteristics and acute toxicity of urban stormwater, streamflow, and bed material, Maricopa County, Arizona. Water Resources Investigation Report 95-4074. Tucson, AZ.

-1995b. Statistical summary of selected physical, chemical, and microbial characteristics, and estimates of constituent loads in urban stormwater, Maricopa County, Arizona. Water Resources Investigation Report 94-4240. Tuscon, AZ.

-1995c. Channel change and sediment transport in two desert streams in Central Arizona, 1991-1992. Water Resources Investigation Report 95-4059. Tucson, AZ.

U.S. Geological Survey and Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. 1997. Statistical analysis of nitrate in ground water, West Salt River Valley, Arizona. Water Resources Investigation Report 97-4185 (USGS) and Open-File Report 97-16 (ADEQ). Tucson, AZ.

Long, A. E., J. G. Brown, and D. J. Gellenbeck. 1997. Statistical analysis of nitrate in ground water, West Salt River Valley, Arizona. U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 97-4185, 38 p.

Rio Salado Oeste 11-10 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Wagoner, J. J. 1983. Early Arizona: prehistory to the Civil War. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Walker, H. P., and D. Bufkin. 1986. Historical atlas of Arizona. 2nd edition. Norman OK: University of Oklahoma Press.

Whittlesey, S. M., R. Ciolek-Torrello, and J. H. Altschul (eds.). 1997. Vanishing river: Landscapes and lives of the lower Verde Valley. Tucson: SRI Press.

Wilcox, D. R. 1981. The Hohokam regional system. In An Archaeological Test of the Sites in the Gila Butte-Santan Region, South-Central Arizona, edited by G. Rice, D. Wilcox, K. Rafferty, and J. Schoenwetter, pp. 77-116. Anthropological Research Papers 18. Arizona State University, Tempe.

-1987. The evolution of Hohokam ceremonial systems. In Astronomy and Ceremony in the Prehistoric Southwest, edited by J. Carlson and W. J. Judge. pp. 149-168. Papers of the Maxwell Museum of Anthropology 2, Albuquerque, NM.

Wilcox, D. R., and L. O. Shenk. 1977. The architecture of the Casa Grande and its interpretation. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series No. 115. Tucson: University of Arizona, Arizona State Museum.

Wildflower Productions. 1999. TOPO: Phoenix, Flagstaff, and Central Arizona Wilderness Areas. CD-ROM. San Francisco.

Witzeman, J. L., S. R. Demaree, and E. L. Radke. 1997. Birds of Phoenix and Maricopa County, Arizona. Phoenix, AZ: Maricopa Audubon Society.

Wormington, H. M. 1973. Prehistoric Indians of the Southwest. Popular Series, Issue 7. Denver, CO: Denver Museum of Natural History.

PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS

Brannan, Michael. Traffic Studies Coordinator, Maricopa County Department of Transportation, Phoenix, AZ. March 6, 2002 – facsimile of traffic volumes derived from 2001 Count Book.

Catchpole, Mark. Manager, Data Analysis Section, Arizona Department of Transportation, Transportation Planning Division. March 7, 2002 – telephone conversation regarding ADOT right-of-way volumes and levels of service.

Goddard, Madeline. Water Quality Engineer, City of Phoenix. March 1, 2002 – telephone conversation regarding wastewater treatment plants.

Hollender, Bob. Superintendent for Compliance of Regulatory Affairs, City of Phoenix. March 7, 2002 – telephone conversation regarding violations at 23rd Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant.

Rio Salado Oeste 11-11 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Karnes, Ken. Chief Water Quality Inspector, City of Phoenix, Pollution Control Division. March 7, 2002 – telephone conversation regarding 23rd Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant.

City of Phoenix. Personal contact with Gaye Knight, Air Quality Specialist. November 2005 and February 2006.

Maricopa County Air Quality Department, Matthew Poppen, personal communication, July 28, 2006.

Merriott, Susan. City of Phoenix, Streets Department. March 12, 2002 – telephone conversation regarding a transportation plan for the City of Phoenix.

Office of Environmental Programs, City of Phoenix. March 1, 2002 – telephone conversation regarding Phase 1 report.

Ramirez, Dan. Maricopa County Vector Control Supervisor, Maricopa County, AZ. March 7, 2002 – telephone conversation regarding mosquito monitoring.

Salisbury, Mike. Senior Water Quality Engineer, City of Phoenix. March 7, 2002 – telephone conversation regarding stormwater runoff into the Salt River.

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). Personal contact with Randy Sedlacek, Air Quality Specialist. November 2005.

Rio Salado Oeste 11-12 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement

CHAPTER 12 DISTRIBUTION LIST

Federal Mr. Stephen Thomas Federal Highway Administration U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 400 E. Van Buren Street, Suite 410 Office of Federal Activities Phoenix, AZ 85004 EIS Filing Section Mail Code 2252-A, Room 7241 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Regulatory Branch Washington, DC 20004 3636 N. Central Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85012 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 9 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Office of Federal Activities 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 809 CED-2 Old Post Office Building 75 Hawthorne Street Washington, D.C. 20004 San Francisco, CA 94105 Native American Tribes Mr. Mike Martinez U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ak-Chin Indian Community Arizona Ecological Services Field Office Nancy Nelson, Cultural Resource Manager 2321 W Royal Palm Road, Suite 103 Ak-Chin Him Dak Eco Museum & Archives Phoenix, AZ 85021-4951 47685 N Eco Museum Rd Maricopa, AZ 85239 Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) Department of the Interior Barnaby V. Lewis, Cultural Resource Main Interior Building, MS 2342 Specialist 1849 C Street NW Gila River Indian Community Washington, DC 20240 Cultural Resources Management Program P.O. Box 2140 Regional Administrator Sacaton, AZ 85247 Federal Aviation Administration Western – Pacific Region Hopi Tribe 15000 Aviation Blvd Leigh Kuwanwisiwma Lawndale, CA 90261 Hopi Cultural Preservation Office P.O. Box 123 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Kykotsmovi, AZ 86039 Phoenix Area Office (PXAO) 6150 West Thunderbird Road Glendale, AZ 85306-4001

Rio Salado Oeste 12-1 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Pascua Yaqui Tribe Amalia A.M. Reyes, Language and Culture Preservation Specialist Arizona Game and Fish Department Pascua Yaqui Tribe 2221 W. Greenway Road 7474 S Camino de Oeste Phoenix, AZ 85023 Tucson, AZ 85746 State Historic Preservation Officer Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Arizona State Parks Community (SRPMIC) 1300 W. Washington Dezbah Hatathli, Cultural Programs Phoenix, AZ 85007 Supervisor Cultural and Environmental Services Arizona Department of Water Resources Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Phoenix Active Management Area Community 3550 N. Central Avenue 10,005 E Osborn Rd Phoenix AZ 85012 Scottsdale, AZ 85256 Mr. Ralph Ellis Tohono O’odham Nation Arizona Department of Transportation Peter Steere, Program Manager 205 S. 17th Avenue Cultural Affairs Department Phoenix, AZ 85007 Tohono O’odham Nation P.O. Box 837 County Sells, AZ 85634 John Hathaway Yavapai-Apache Nation Watercourse Planning Manager, Planning Don Decker, Director and Project Management Division Apache Cultural Program Flood Control District of Maricopa County Camp Verde Tribal Building 2801 W. Durango Street 2400 W Datsi St Phoenix, AZ 85009 Camp Verde, AZ 86322 Robert Kard, Director Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe Maricopa County Air Quality Department Greg Glassco, Director 1001 North Central Avenue, Suite #500 Cultural Research Program Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Yavapai-Prescott Tribe 530 E. Merritt St. Chief Engineer and General Manager Prescott, AZ 86301 Flood Control District of Maricopa County 2801 W. Durango Street State Agencies Phoenix, AZ 85009

Arizona Dept. of Environmental Quality Maricopa County Environmental Services Water Quality Division, Federal Permits 1001 N. Central Ave. Section Phoenix, AZ 85004 1110 W Washington Street Mail Code 5415B-3 Phoenix, AZ 85007

Rio Salado Oeste 12-2 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement

City of Phoenix Maricopa County Historical Society Water Services Director 21 N. Frontier Street 200 W. Washington St., 5th Floor Wickenburg, AZ 85390-1417 Phoenix, AZ 85003

Maricopa County Parks and Recreation City of Phoenix Department Planning Department Attn: Chris Coover Estrella Village Planning Committee 234 N. Central Ave. 200 W. Washington St., 6th Floor Suite 6400 Phoenix, AZ 85003 Phoenix, AZ 85004 City of Phoenix City of Phoenix Planning Department Laveen Village Planning Committee City of Phoenix 200 W. Washington St., 6th Floor Karen Williams Phoenix, AZ 85003 Rio Salado Project Director 200 W. Washington St., 12th Floor City of Phoenix Phoenix, AZ 85003 Planning Department South Mountain Village Planning City of Phoenix Committee Walt Kinsler 200 W. Washington St, 6th Floor Rio Salado Project Manager Phoenix, AZ 85003 200 W. Washington St, 7th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85003 Elected Officials

City of Phoenix Honorable Janet Napolitano Donn Stoltzfus Governor of Arizona Office of Environmental Programs 1700 West Washington Ave. 200 W. Washington St., 14th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85007 Phoenix, AZ 85003 Honorable Jon Kyl George Young 2200 E. Camelback, Ste 120 Chair, Rio Salado Citizens Advisory Phoenix, AZ 85016-3455 Committee 514 W. Sunland Avenue Honorable John McCain Phoenix, AZ 85041 2400 E. Arizona Biltmore Center #1150 Phoenix, AZ 85016-2108 City of Phoenix Parks and Recreation Director Honorable Ed Pastor 200 W. Washington St., 16th Floor 411 North Central Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85003 Suite 150 Phoenix, AZ 85004

Rio Salado Oeste 12-3 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Honorable John Shadegg Libraries 301 E. Bethany Home Rd. C-178 Burton Barr Central Library Phoenix, AZ 85012 1221 N. Central Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85004 Fulton Brock Supervisor, Maricopa County Ocotillo Branch Library 301 W. Jefferson, 10th Floor 102 W. Southern Phoenix, AZ 85003 Phoenix, AZ 85041

Don Stapley Desert Sage Branch Library Supervisor, Maricopa County 7602 W. Encanto Blvd. 301 W. Jefferson, 10th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85035 Phoenix, AZ 85003 Palo Verde Branch Library Andrew Kunasek 4402 N. 51st Avenue Supervisor, Maricopa County Phoenix, AZ 85031 301 W. Jefferson, 10th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85003 Arizona State University Libraries Box 871006 Max Wilson Tempe, AZ 85287-1006 Supervisor, Maricopa County 301 W. Jefferson, 10th Floor CSU Library Phoenix, AZ 85003 Attn: Judy Smith 1019 Campus Mary Rose Wilcox Ft. Collins, CO 80523 Supervisor, Maricopa County 301 W. Jefferson, 10th Floor Organizations Phoenix, AZ 85003 Audubon Arizona Mayor Phil Gordon 4250 East Camelback Road City of Phoenix Suite 193K 200 W. Washington St Phoenix, AZ 85018 Phoenix, AZ 85003 Maricopa Audubon Society City of Phoenix, Vice Mayor Doug P.O. Box 15451 Lingner's Office Phoenix, AZ 85060 200 W. Washington St., 11th floor Phoenix, AZ 85003 Director Sierra Club Councilman Claude Mattox Southwest Field Office District 5 202 E. McDowell Road, Suite 277 200 W. Washington St, 11th floor Phoenix, AZ 85004 Phoenix, AZ 85003

Rio Salado Oeste 12-4 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Director Center for Biological Diversity P.O. Box 39382 Phoenix, AZ 85069

Mr. Paul Cherrington Salt River Project Mail Station PAB 103 PO Box 52025 Phoenix, AZ 85072

Diane Brossart Valley Forward Association 3800 North Central Avenue, Ste. 220 Phoenix, AZ 85012

Tim Flood Friends of Arizona Rivers 503 E. Medlock Dr. Phoenix, AZ 85012

Interested Party letters

Steve Brittle Harold Hunt Chuck Pedri T Tompkins Julie Stromberg AZ Rock Products Matthew Lord Roland Wass Jeff Englemann Bill Weiss Don Campbell Dan DeSemple Victor Vidales George Miller Karim Dada Steve Weiner Rich Fogarty

Rio Salado Oeste 12-5 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement

CHAPTER 13 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AAC Arizona Administrative Code AAC Average Annual Cost AAFCU Average Annual Functional Capacity Unit AAQS Ambient Air Quality Standards ac-ft acre-foot ADEQ Arizona Department of Environmental Quality ADES Arizona Department of Economic Security ADOT Arizona Department of Transportation ADT Average Daily Traffic ADWR Arizona Department of Water Resources AGFD Arizona Game and Fish Department AMA Active Management Area (Arizona Department of Water Resources designation for particular groundwater basins throughout the state) APE Area of Potential Effect APP Aquifer Protection Permit AQD Air Quality Department ASLD Arizona State Land Department AWQS Aquifer Water Quality Standard AZPDES Arizona Pollution Discharge Elimination System AZ-WIPWG Arizona Wildlands Invasive Plant Working Group

BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs BMP Best Management Plan BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand

CAA Clean Air Act CAFO Concentrated Animal-Feeding Operation CEA Cost Effectiveness Analysis CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (commonly referred to as the “Superfund” Act) CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System CFR Code of Federal Regulations cfs cubic feet per second cm centimeter CNEL Community noise equivalent level CO carbon monoxide COP City of Phoenix Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CORRACTS Corrective Action Reports Rio Salado Oeste 13-1 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement

CWA Clean Water Act dB decibel dBA A-weighted decibel DBCP Dibromochloropropane DCA 1,2 Dichloroethane DCE 1,1 Dichloroethane DDT Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement

EDB Ethylene Dibromide EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ERDC Engineer Research and Development Center ERNS Emergency Response Notification System ES Executive Summary ESA Endangered Species Act/Environmental Site Assessment ESRV East Salt River Valley, one of two Phoenix AMA alluvial groundwater basins

FAA Federal Aviation Administration FCDMC Flood Control District of Maricopa County FCI Functional Capacity Index FCU Functional Capacity Unit FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement FR Federal Register FWCA Federal Wildlife Coordination Act FWS (U.S.) Fish and Wildlife Service

GRIC Gila River Indian Community

HAP Hazardous Air Pollutant HEC-RAS Hydrologic Engineering Centers River Analysis System HGM Hydrogeomorphic Assessment HR House Resolution HTRW Hazardous, Toxic and Radioactive Waste HUD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

ICA Incremental Cost Analysis kph kilometers per hour

LAU Lower Alluvial Unit Ldn day-night average sound level Leq equivalent sound level LUST Leaking underground storage tank

Rio Salado Oeste 13-2 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement

µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter MAG Maricopa Association of Governments MFR Memorandum for the Record MAU Middle Alluvial Unit Mgd millions of gallons per day mg/l milligrams per liter MM Mitigation Measure MM Modified Mercalli (Intensity Scale) MNA Museum of Northern Arizona MOA Memorandum of Agreement mph miles per hour MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NED National Economic Development NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NER National Ecosystem Restoration NESHAPs National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants NFIP National Flood Insurance Program NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NO2 nitrogen dioxide NOX oxides of nitrogen NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOI Notice of Intent NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPL National Priorities List (EPA list of Superfund sites) NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places NSR New Source Review NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Unit

O3 Ozone OHV Off-Highway Vehicle OMRR&R Operation, Maintenance, Repair, Replacement and Rehabilitation OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

PCE Tetrachloroethylene (Perchloroethylene) PM-10 Particulate Matter 10 microns or less in diameter ppm Parts per million PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration PVNGSWCS Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Wastewater Conveyance System

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RID Roosevelt Irrigation District ROD Record of Decision ROG Reactive Organic Gases

Rio Salado Oeste 13-3 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement

RTP Regional Transportation Plan

SCC Sacramento Canal Company sf Square Foot SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SIP State Implementation Plan SO2 Sulfur dioxide SR State Route SRP Salt River Project SRPMIC Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community SWMP Stormwater Management Plan SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan sy Square Yard

TAC Toxic air contaminant TCA 1,1,1 Trichloroethane TCE Trichloroethene TDS Total dissolved solids thalweg Centerline of drainage flow within a watercourse TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load tpy Tons per year TSD RCRA-approved treatment, storage, and disposal facilities TY Target Year

UAU Upper Alluvial Unit USBR U.S. Bureau of Reclamation UST Underground Storage Tank USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey

VOC Volatile organic compound

WQARF Arizona Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund WQTC Water Quality Technical Committee WSC Wildlife of Special Concern WSRV West Salt River Valley, one of two Phoenix AMA alluvial groundwater basins WWTP Wastewater treatment plant

Rio Salado Oeste 13-4 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement

INDEX BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES, 2-4 ACTIVE MANAGEMENT AREA, 7-6, 11-1, 12-1 ADVERSE EFFECTS, 3-34, 4-10, 4-24 CACTUS FERRUGINOUS PYGMY OWL, 3-42 AESTHETIC RESOURCES, 2-4 CANYON LAKE, 3-8 AFRICAN AMERICAN, 3-69 CASHION, 3-51, 3-52 AGUA FRIA RIVER, 2-6, 3-7, 3-36, 3-41, 3-51, 3- CITY OF MESA, 3-6, 3-22, 5-1 53, 3-79, 3-80, 4-14, 5-4, 5-7 CITY OF PHOENIX, 1, 3, 4, 2-2, 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, 2-7, AIR QUALITY, 2-4, 3-60, 4-28, 4-30, 7-1, 11-1 2-14, 2-17, 2-18, 2-19, 2-23, 2-24, 3-17, 3-18, AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY, 3-53, 12-3 3-26, 3-52, 3-53, 3-54, 3-56, 3-57, 3-67, 3-68, ALTERNATIVE 2, 6, 2-6, 2-13, 2-16, 2-17, 2-18, 3-71, 3-73, 3-74, 3-75, 3-77, 3-78, 3-79, 3-80, 2-19, 4-2, 4-4, 4-14, 4-18, 4-21, 4-22, 4-30 3-82, 3-83, 3-86, 4-9, 4-13, 4-19, 4-22, 4-25, 4- ALTERNATIVE 4, 2, 2-6, 2-19, 4-18, 4-21 31, 4-37, 4-39, 5-3, 5-4, 5-8, 5-11, 7-4, 8-3, 8- ALTERNATIVE 5, 1, 2, 3, 2-1, 2-6, 2-18, 2-20, 2- 7, 9-1, 9-2, 11-3, 11-4, 11-7, 11-9, 11-10, 11- 22, 4-4, 4-18, 7-5, 8-1 12, 11-13, 12-1 ALTERNATIVE 5A, 1, 2, 3, 2-1, 2-6, 2-20, 2-22, 4- CLEAN AIR ACT, 3-62, 3-63, 4-31, 7-1, 12-1 4, 4-18, 7-5, 8-1 CLEAN WATER ACT, 3-18, 3-20, 3-21, 4-5, 7-2, ALTERNATIVE 5B, 2, 2-6, 2-20, 4-18 11-1, 12-2 AMERICAN COOT, 3-28 COLONIAL PERIOD, 3-46 AMERICAN INDIAN, 3-39, 3-53, 3-68, 3-69, 11-4, COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE, 11-5, 11-6 COMPENSATION, AND LIABILITY ACT AMERICAN INDIAN RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ACT, (CERCLA), 3-84 3-39, 3-53 COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, 2-2, 6- AMERICAN KESTREL, 3-23, 3-27, 3-33 1, 12-1 AMERICAN PEREGRINE FALCON, 3-34, 3-37, 4-12 CULTURAL RESOURCES, 2-4 APACHE LAKE, 3-8 AQUIFER PROTECTION PERMIT, 3-18, 3-82, 3-86, DEER VALLEY, 3-73 7-6, 12-1 DESERT TORTOISE, 3-40 ARIZONA CANAL, 3-8, 3-49 DESERT WILLOW, 2-10 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (ADEQ), 3-14, 3-21, 3-60, 3-82, 4-5, EAST SALT RIVER VALLEY (ESRV), 3-11, 7-6 7-6, 11-1, 11-13 EFFLUENT, 4-8 ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT (ESA), 3-33 (ADOT), 3-20 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS), 3- ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 20 (ADWR), 3-11, 7-6 ESTRELLA, 2-23, 3-3, 3-55, 3-56, 3-74, 3-77, 3- ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT 78, 3-79, 3-81, 4-39, 11-7 (AGFD), 2, 2-2, 3-33, 7-4 ESTRELLA MOUNTAINS, 3-79 ARIZONA SAFE DRINKING WATER PROGRAM, 3- ESTRELLA PLANNING AREA LAND USE PLAN, 3- 22 56 AVONDALE, 3-3, 3-79 FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, 12-1, 12-2 BALD AND GOLDEN EAGLE PROTECTION ACT, FISH AND WILDLIFE COORDINATION ACT 7-3 (FWCA), 3-33 BALD EAGLE, 3-35, 3-40 FLOOD CONTROL ACT OF 1938, 2-4 BARTLETT DAM, 3-7, 3-8 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT OF MARICOPA BARTLETT LAKE, 3-7 COUNTY (FCDMC), 2-2, 3-19 BASELINE ROAD, 1, 2-5, 3-1, 3-52, 3-79 FLOOD DAMAGE, 1 BELTED KINGFISHER, 3-28 FUGITIVE DUST, 4-28

Rio Salado Oeste 13-5 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement

GENERAL CONFORMITY RULE, 3-63, 7-1 GENERAL PLAN, 3-57 MALLARD, 3-29 GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY, 2-4 MARICOPA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS GILA RIVER, 1, 2-1, 2-4, 2-6, 3-4, 3-6, 3-7, 3-14, (MAG), 3-68 3-16, 3-18, 3-19, 3-20, 3-21, 3-34, 3-36, 3-40, MARICOPA COUNTY, 1, 2-5, 2-2, 3-1, 3-2, 3-4, 3- 3-41, 3-42, 3-44, 3-46, 3-47, 3-49, 3-52, 3-53, 15, 3-19, 3-20, 3-29, 3-33, 3-36, 3-46, 3-54, 3- 3-57, 3-76, 3-79, 4-16, 11-2, 11-3, 11-5, 12-3, 56, 3-57, 3-59, 3-60, 3-61, 3-62, 3-64, 3-67, 3- 12-2 68, 3-69, 3-70, 3-71, 3-72, 3-74, 3-75, 3-77, 3- GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY, 1, 3-46, 3-49, 78, 3-79, 3-80, 3-81, 3-82, 3-86, 4-28, 4-29, 4- 3-54, 3-57, 3-76, 3-79, 11-2, 11-5, 12-3, 12-2 30, 4-31, 4-39, 4-43, 5-1, 5-8, 5-10, 5-11, 5-12, GILA WOODPECKER, 3-29 5-13, 6-1, 7-3, 8-6, 8-9, 9-2, 9-3, 11-2, 11-6, GRANITE REEF DAM, 3-4, 3-15, 3-22, 5-1, 5-5, 5- 11-7, 11-8, 11-11, 11-12, 11-13, 12-1, 12-3, 12- 7 2 GRANITE REEF DIVERSION DAM, 3-8, 3-9 MARICOPA COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, 3- GREAT BLUE HERON, 3-27, 4-15 56, 3-67, 3-77, 3-78, 3-81, 4-39, 5-12, 5-13 GROUNDWATER, 2-6, 2-7, VII, 2-1, 2-8, 3-9, 3-11, MESQUITE, 6, 2-5, 2-6, 2-7, 2-8, 2-9, 2-10, 2-16, 3-15, 3-84, 3-85, 3-86, 4-3, 4-4, 4-8, 5-6, 7-6, 2-17, 2-18, 3-24, 3-28, 3-29 11-10 METALS, 3-13, 3-14 MEXICAN GARTER SNAKE, 3-34, 3-35, 3-40, 4- HB 2601, 3-76 12, 4-16 HISPANIC, VII, 3-48, 3-68, 3-69, 3-72 MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT, 7-4 HOHOKAM CULTURE, 3-44, 3-45 MITIGATION MEASURE, 4, 2-1, 4-1, 8-1 HOPI TRIBE, 3-54, 12-3 MITIGATION MEASURES, 4, 2-1, 4-1, 8-1 HORSESHOE DAM, 3-7 MOSQUITOES, 3-86, 4-41 HORSESHOE LAKE, 3-8 HOUSE RESOLUTION 2425, 2-4 NATIONAL ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION, 2-1, 12-3 HTRW, III, IV, 3-83, 3-84, 4-42, 8-8, 12-2 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT HYDROGEOMORPHIC (HGM), 4-9 (NEPA), 1, 2-7 HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES, 2-4 NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT, 4, 3- 38, 3-53, 4-24, 4-25, 5-7, 6-2, 7-4, 8-5, 12-3 IMPACTS, 2-11, 2-3, 3-13, 3-62, 4-1, 4-3, 4-19, 4- NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE 20, 4-26, 4-36, 4-38, 4-40, 4-41 ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES), 3-17, 3-82 INDIAN BEND WASH, 3-9, 5-3, 5-5 NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST (NPL), 3-83 INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 10, 3-73 NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES IONS, 3-13 (NATIONAL REGISTER), 3-38 IRRIGATION, 2-8, 2-13, 3-17, 3-18, 3-28, 3-49, 3- NATIVE AMERICAN GRAVE PROTECTION AND 50, 11-5, 11-8 REPATRIATION ACT (NAGPRA), 3-44 NATIVE HAWAIIAN OR OTHER PACIFIC LAKE PLEASANT, 3-7, 3-79 ISLANDER, 3-68, 3-69 LAND USE, 2-4, 4-38, 4-40 NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE LANDFILLS, 3-13, 4-8 (NRCS), 3-18 LAVEEN, 2-23, 3-56, 3-57, 3-74, 3-75, 3-77, 3-78, NEW WADDELL DAM, 3-7 3-81, 4-39, 11-7 NOISE, 2-9, 2-4, 3-1, 3-64, 3-65, 3-66, 3-67, 4-14, LAVEEN PLANNING AREA LAND USE PLAN, 3-57 4-15, 4-33, 4-34, 8-6 LESSER LONG-NOSED BAT, 3-42 NONATTAINMENT, 3-60 LONG-TERM IMPACTS, 4-2 NUTRIENTS, 3-13 LOWER BUCKEYE ROAD, 1, 2-5, 3-1, 3-52, 3-82, 3-85 OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY LOWLAND LEOPARD FROG, 3-40, 4-16 ADMINISTRATION (OSHA), 3-66 LUKE AIR FORCE BASE, 3-5, 3-73 OPEN WATER, 3-29, 3-40

Rio Salado Oeste 13-6 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement

OZONE, 3-60, 3-61, 3-62, 12-3 SALT RIVER, 1, 2, 2-1, 2-2, 2-5, 2-6, 2-2, 2-9, 2- 12, 2-14, 2-23, 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, 3-4, 3-6, 3-7, 3-8, PAINTED ROCK DAM, 3-19 3-9, 3-10, 3-11, 3-12, 3-13, 3-14, 3-15, 3-16, 3- PAINTED ROCK LAKE, 3-8 17, 3-18, 3-19, 3-20, 3-21, 3-22, 3-26, 3-27, 3- PAPAGO PARK, 3-12 28, 3-29, 3-30, 3-33, 3-35, 3-36, 3-37, 3-40, 3- PARADISE VALLEY, 3-16 41, 3-42, 3-46, 3-49, 3-50, 3-51, 3-52, 3-53, 3- PASCUA YAQUI TRIBE, 3-54, 12-3 54, 3-55, 3-57, 3-58, 3-61, 3-65, 3-73, 3-74, 3- PESTICIDES, 3-13, 4-43, 8-8 77, 3-79, 3-80, 3-82, 3-83, 3-84, 3-85, 3-86, 3- PHOENIX, 1, 2-1, 2-2, 2-5, 2-6, 2-2, 2-15, 2-19, 2- 87, 4-4, 4-10, 4-11, 4-16, 4-18, 4-24, 4-27, 4- 23, 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, 3-5, 3-6, 3-7, 3-8, 3-11, 3-14, 36, 4-39, 4-41, 4-43, 5-1, 5-3, 5-4, 5-5, 5-6, 5- 3-15, 3-16, 3-19, 3-21, 3-30, 3-34, 3-35, 3-36, 7, 5-8, 5-10, 5-11, 5-12, 5-13, 7-5, 7-6, 8-9, 9- 3-37, 3-40, 3-42, 3-44, 3-45, 3-47, 3-49, 3-50, 1, 9-2, 11-3, 11-5, 11-8, 11-9, 11-10, 11-11, 3-51, 3-54, 3-55, 3-57, 3-58, 3-59, 3-66, 3-67, 11-13, 12-3, 12-2, 12-4 3-70, 3-73, 3-75, 3-76, 3-78, 3-79, 3-80, 3-82, SALT RIVER PIMA-MARICOPA INDIAN 4-10, 4-17, 4-37, 4-41, 5-1, 5-3, 5-5, 5-6, 5-7, COMMUNITY (SRPMIC), 3-22 5-8, 5-10, 5-12, 7-6, 9-3, 11-1, 11-2, 11-3, 11- SALT RIVER PROJECT (SRP), 2-1, 3-7, 3-19, 3- 4, 11-5, 11-6, 11-7, 11-8, 11-9, 11-10, 11-11, 51, 3-82 11-12, 11-13, 12-3, 12-2, 12-4 SALT RIVER VALLEY, 3-2, 3-3, 3-6, 3-11, 3-16, PHOENIX ACTIVE MANAGEMENT AREA (AMA), 3-46, 3-49, 3-50, 3-51, 3-54, 3-58, 7-6, 11-8, 3-11, 7-6 11-11, 12-2, 12-4 SAN CARLOS LAKE, 3-8 PHOENIX BASIN, 3-5, 3-44, 3-45, 3-47 SAND AND GRAVEL MINING, 2-1, 3-65 PIONEER PERIOD, 3-45, 11-3 SCRUB-SHRUB, 3-31, 4-27 PM10, 2-9 SECTION, 1, 4, 2-1, 2-4, 2-1, 2-14, 3-2, 3-20, 3- PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY, 2-4 21, 3-34, 3-35, 3-38, 3-53, 3-67, 3-76, 3-86, 4-

1, 4-5, 4-24, 4-25, 4-28, 4-37, 4-43, 5-7, 5-8, 5- QUAILBUSH, 3-31 13, 6-2, 7-1, 7-3, 7-4, 7-6, 8-5, 8-7, 8-9, 10-1, QUATERNARY PERIOD, 3-2 10-3, 11-1, 11-12

SECTION 106, 4, 3-38, 3-53, 4-24, 4-25, 5-7, 6-2, RAINFALL, 3-6, 3-11, 3-58 7-4, 8-5 RECREATION, 2-7, 2-10, VII, 2-4, 2-2, 2-23, 2-24, SECTION 303(D), 3-21, 11-1 3-1, 3-24, 3-30, 3-75, 3-76, 3-79, 4-14, 4-31, 4- SECTION 401, 3-20, 4-37, 8-7 40, 5-5, 11-4, 11-9, 12-3 SECTION 402, 3-21 RECREATIONISTS, 2-10, 4-37 SECTION 404(B)(1), 3-20, 4-5 RED MOUNTAIN, 3-45 SECTION 404(R), 3-20, 3-21 REGULATION 200-2, 7-1 SECTION 6, 2-4 RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY SEDIMENT REMOVAL, 2-14, 4-16, 8-4 ACT (RCRA), 3-84 SHORT-TERM IMPACTS, 4-19, 4-20, 4-21, 4-22 RIO SALADO OESTE PROJECT, 2-22, 2-23, 3-24, SKY HARBOR INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, 3-73, 5-1, 11-10 5-7, 5-10 RIO SALADO PROJECT, 2-12, 3-10, 3-11, 3-80 SNAKETOWN, 3-45, 3-52, 11-2, 11-5 RIPARIAN HABITAT, 3-26 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC RESOURCES, 2-4 ROOSEVELT DAM, 3-7 SONORA EARTHQUAKE, 3-5 ROOSEVELT IRRIGATION DISTRICT, 12-4 SONORAN DESERT, 3-2, 3-9, 3-34, 3-40, 3-54, 3- RUSSIAN THISTLE, 3-32 57, 3-79, 4-13, 5-2

SOUTH CANAL, 3-8 SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT, 3-22 SOUTHWESTERN WILLOW FLYCATCHER, 3-41 SAGUARO, 3-8 STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER, 4, 3- SAGUARO LAKE, 3-8 53, 4-25, 4-26, 7-4, 8-5, 12-2 SALT CEDAR, 2-12, 3-24, 3-26, 4-17 STORMWATER OUTFALL, 2-7

Rio Salado Oeste 13-7 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement

STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION (USBR), 3-11, (SWPPP), 3-17, 3-21, 4-5 3-19 STORMWATER RUNOFF, 2-19 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, 2, 3-33, 3-35, STUDY AREA, DEFINED, 3-22 4-12, 4-16, 7-3, 7-4, 8-4, 12-1, 12-4 SUN CIRCLE TRAIL, 3-79 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY (USGS), 3-11 SUPERFUND SITES, 3-14, 4-8, 12-3 UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, 5-7, 6-2 SURFACE WATER, 3-12, 5-6 VA SHLY’AY AKIMEL, 5-1, 5-5, 5-6, 5-8, 5-9 TEMPE BUTTE, 3-12 VECTOR CONTROL, 4-14, 9-2 TEMPE TOWN LAKE, 3-11, 5-1, 5-3, 5-5, 5-6, 5-7, VEGETATION, 2-7, 2-11, 3-22, 3-23, 3-26, 3-28, 5-8, 5-11, 11-10 3-29, 3-30, 3-31, 3-32, 3-55, 4-10, 4-12, 4-13, TERTIARY PERIOD, 3-2 4-14, 4-19, 4-20, 4-22, 4-23 THEODORE ROOSEVELT DAM, 3-7, 3-9 VERDE RIVER, 3-6, 3-7, 3-8, 3-13, 3-15, 3-19, 3- TITLE III, 3-62, 3-63 37, 3-42, 3-51 TOHONO O'ODHAM NATION, 3-54 TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS (TDS), 3-13, 3-15 WASTEWATER, 2-7, 3-13, 3-14, 3-18, 3-26, 3-52, TRAFFIC, 2-10, 4-36, 4-37, 8-7, 11-12, 12-1 4-8, 11-12, 12-3, 12-4 TRANSPORTATION, 2-4, 3-1, 3-61, 3-63, 3-71, 3- WATER QUALITY, 2-4, 3-14, 3-20, 3-22, 4-3, 4-6 72, 3-74, 4-32, 8-6, 11-12, 12-1, 12-4 WATER QUALITY TECHNICAL COMMITTEE TRES RIOS PROJECT, 2-23, 3-16, 3-80, 3-86, 9-2, (WQTC), 3-16 11-8 WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES, 7-2 TUCSON, 3-34, 3-37, 3-42, 3-47, 9-2, 11-2, 11-3, WEST SALT RIVER VALLEY (WSRV), 3-11, 7-6 11-4, 11-5, 11-6, 11-8, 11-9, 11-10, 11-11, 11- WESTERN YELLOW-BILLED CUCKOO, 3-41 12 WHITE-THROATED WOODRAT, 3-27

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (CORPS), 1, 2- YAVAPAI-APACHE NATION, 3-54, 12-3 2, 3-19, 3-33, 3-76 YAVAPAI-PRESCOTT INDIAN TRIBE, 12-3 YUMA CLAPPER RAIL, 2-2, 3-34, 3-35, 3-41, 4-12

Rio Salado Oeste 13-8 September 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement